Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coupe de la Ligue winners/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:39, 23 March 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)
Toolbox |
---|
Short as it may be, I believe it satisfies the Featured List criteria. All comments welcome, and will be addressed ASAP. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved review by Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues found in review resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Second sentence reads very oddly, and the punctuation is misplaced. I suggest "The tournament was established in 1994,[2] although similar competitions had been previously held in France" Done - Changed to that.
- "was held before the start of the French league season; which was won by" - semi-colon should be a comma Done - Changed to comma.
- "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup" - reads as if entrance to the UEFA Cup was the first part of the tournament. Should be something like "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup offered to the winning team" Done - Changed to that.
- "The first three years of the cup had been held" - wrong on two counts, firstly the tense is incorrect, and secondly only the final was held there, not the whole cup - suggest simply "The first three finals were held" Done - Changed to that.
- "Overall, there has been" => "Overall, there have been" Done - Changed.
- "having won the cup three times" => "who have won the cup three times" Done - Changed.
- "The current holders of the cup are Paris Saint-Germain, when they beat Lens" - very odd wording, why not just "....who beat Lens"? Done - Changed to that.
- Is footnote A really necessary? I think most people can work out what "attendance" means in the context of a sporting contest Done - Removed, sorry for the delay in replies, something came up. All concerns now dealt with. Cheers.
- Cheers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All looks good now - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, seems good. I could not find any mistake.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Coupe de la Ligue and this article are both reasonably short. Is there any reason why they couldn't be merged together? -- Scorpion0422 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll do this now. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is being done, then is there any reason for this FLC to be running? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? I don't follow. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's asking if you want to withdraw the FLC while you work on a merge. -- Scorpion0422 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah that'll be fine. I withdraw this nomination until the merge is complete. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's asking if you want to withdraw the FLC while you work on a merge. -- Scorpion0422 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? I don't follow. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is being done, then is there any reason for this FLC to be running? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll do this now. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.