Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons/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 promoted by Dabomb87 15:17, 16 July 2010 [1].
List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A football club list of seasons that follows the standard and accepted structure of those that have passed this process in the past, like List of York City F.C. seasons and the recently promoted List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sandman888 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:* "The Second Division was renamed League One as part of a rebranding exercise by the Football League" cant verify w. source
|
Comments few quick bits
Hull's FA Cup defeat to Stockton was 4-1 in the replay after a 3-3 draw, not 7-4 on aggregate, see the FA website's archive.- Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need to link every season mentioned in the lead to xxxx-yy in English football? might be better to restrict the links to the first time you refer to a season, and then only link seasons that are particularly relevant to Hull City's history.
- Not sure the links are a problem personally, and choosing links to seasons that are particularly relevant to the club's history seems a little subjective to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the comment in relation to WP:LINK#Overlinking and underlinking, which suggests we link to articles "that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", and that overlinking "can make it more difficult for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value". Wasn't really sure how much more understanding is added by linking to 1935–36 in English football and 1955–56 in English football, articles which only contain a set of league tables. It's not enough to stop me supporting, I'm maybe over-sensitive after getting involved with a Featured Article Review and ending up having to copyedit what seemed like hundreds of year-in-English-football links out of Arsenal F.C.....
- Not sure the links are a problem personally, and choosing links to seasons that are particularly relevant to the club's history seems a little subjective to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption is a sentence so needs a full stop. If it was me, I might change it to "Hull City players and staff celebrate..."- Added full stop and reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Top scorers column doesn't say what competitions are included (at time of writing, neither does Lincoln's, you should have followed York City :-)- Added in a note. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider adding an Average (league) attendance column, if sources are available (please don't feel obliged to just because I suggested it here: some of these lists have them, a lot don't)- This would require going through each of the seasons in the Peterson book and working the average attendances out manually, and as this would be a time-consuming and arduous task I think I'll probably do it sometime after this nomination is closed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some "complete record"-type books give the average attendance. If yours doesn't, then I wouldn't bother with it.
- This would require going through each of the seasons in the Peterson book and working the average attendances out manually, and as this would be a time-consuming and arduous task I think I'll probably do it sometime after this nomination is closed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sorry I needed reminding to revisit this review. Meets FL criteria, as far as I can tell. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – If I had to make one complaint about the list, it is that "being" is used a bit much for my taste, particularly in the "with .... being" structure. I think this can make the writing more wordy than its needs to be, and alternatives can typically be used easily. However, everything else looks solid from my vantage point, so I'm willing to accept it and back the list immediately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have had a go at some rewording, and cheers for the support. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support – Good work. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 05:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.