Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records/archive1

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch articleWatch peer review

Next in-line for the Ipswich Town drive for featured topic, I'd like the community to review this article. I'm convinced that with some (or a lot!) of work I can get this to featured status, either FL or FA. I'm prepared to do a lot of rework in terms of prose etc should FA be the way forward, if FL then I'd appreciate advice on how best to get there too given the mixed nature of the article.

I will, as ever, endeavour to remedy wrongs, discuss discussion points and work hard to get this article as promoted as the community believe is possible. Cheers as always for your time, effort and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4

edit

A few things to start with

At this point, I'll mention that most of the problems being addressed here (to-date) were caused by me. Sorry! --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

Overall, it looks excellent, just a few points from me.....

Other than that it's another excellent TRM creation!!! :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2

edit

That'll do for now, hope some of it helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, re italics in tables.

Further comment, re table widths.

Autoreview

edit

Comments from Jameboy

edit
  • "in a World Cup Finals" etc. - I'm not sure if this is correct. I understand exactly what is meant but grammatically it seems wrong. Adding the word "tournament" might help to clarify? If this phraseology has been accepted by the project (don't know if it has) then I'll happily accept that. But it just sounds a bit odd to me.
  • How about adding most sub appearances? Possibly a bit trivial?
  • How about tallest and shortest players? Or is that again too trivial? Could also be tricky to source I guess. Just thinking outside the box.

Jameboy (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of outstanding comments

edit

Okay, so far so good and thanks to Peanut4, ChrisTheDude and Struway2 for the comments (and Dweller for helping to deal with the comments) - the article has progressed well since the start of the PR. I think there are two three outstanding issues.

  1. The lead needs a complete re-write.
    I've had a go at this, please feel free to criticise and improve! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should I rework and add more prose to make this more FA/FL-friendly? I'll be nominating for FL before toooo long so I'd hope you can all be super-critical, even if it's to tell me that I'm out of my mind.
    I'd like some advice on this. I'm going to take it to WP:FLC before the end of the weekend so I'd prefer not to get shot down in flames! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Southern Section Cup" - is that the Football League Third Division South Cup? If so, I'd personally use that name, or at the very least use "Third Division South Cup". I've never seen it referred to as the Southern Section Cup, personally..... per ChrisTheDude

Thanks so far! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]