Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 11:12, 14 December 2007.

Leeds United A.F.C. seasons[edit]

Modeled on Aston Villa F.C. seasons‎. There has been some disagreement between myself and Chappy84 {thank you to him BTW for his work on this list) about including the current season and the WW2 season which I we can sort out here. There are also some links which I should be able to remove within a day or so. Buc (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • First, why was this article not taken to Peer Review first?
      • Does it really need to? I decussed some issues with this article on other users talk pages before nominating, isn't that enough? Buc (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "need" per se, but..., it is seen as a good way to iron out the problems the article may have. FLC should not be treated as a peer review, though it often is. (For transparency, I was one of the users who was contacted). Woody (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second, if the lead says the article covers the period from Leeds United's foundation to the end of the last completed season, why is information about the current season included too? I would suggest removing the info on the current season, per most other Seasons articles.
  • That's all for now, but I'll have more later. – PeeJay 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here are the rest of my comments:
    • The lead states that it covers the club's seasons since 1919 to the present day, yet the table begins with the 1920-21 season. I suggest changing the lead to say "It covers the period from the club's entry to the Football League in 1920, following the demise of Leeds City in 1919, to the present day".
    • I also still think that you should remove the information about the current season from the table, but that's not essential if you feel you can keep it up to date with each match played.
    • Where it says "October, 1919" in the lead, there should not be a comma.
    • Is there really any need to mention that the club remains outside the top two divisions in English football "as of 2007"? Maybe re-add it at the end of the season, or at the end of the 2008-09 season if the club still hasn't been promoted back to the Championship by then, but at the minute it just looks like clumsy wording.
    • Perhaps rephrase "All these honours were won under the management of either Don Revie or Howard Wilkinson" to "All these honours were won by just two managers; Don Revie and Howard Wilkinson".
    • Is there any need to mention that managers are not included in the list of seasons? Although a crucial part of the club's history, the manager isn't really part of the seasonal history.
      • I added this in after removing the managers from the table. Buc (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since the managers shouldn't have been there in the first place, there's no reason to explain why they're not there. – PeeJay 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would liked to have had managers in there. Also a reason why is not given. Buc (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I meant was that you don't need to say that something's not there when people aren't expecting it to be there. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whose to say they aren't expecting it? Buc (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe Youth Cup victories should be included in the "Other" column (or at all). The Youth Cup is a youth team competition, and I assume this article is only supposed to cover the Leeds United first team.
    • I don't think there is any need to put full stops at the end of each footnote. Also, in footnote 11, "points" is misspelled and should not be capitalised.
  • Right, I think that's it from me. If you can correct those things, you'll have my support. – PeeJay 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Buc, why revert a lot of good work?! Remove current season. A featured list should not need to be updated on a daily basis. All other FL's of this nature go to the most recently completed season. I suggest you follow the pattern. And therefore change the lead back to "most recently completed season". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a rule that says you can't have the current season? Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but presumably you are familiar with the need for stability and it doesn't make sense for a Featured article to have a need to be continually updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind having to update it. It's not like changing number is a masive job. Also there in a note at the bottem say when the table was last updated. The NFL seasons FL have the current season. Buc (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't make it right. What if you disappear for a few weeks? The article becomes stale, out of date, so axe the current season. What's the benefit of having it in? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's the benefit of not having it? Doesn't do any harm does it? if I disappear for a few weeks the date at the bottem will inform people of when it was last updated. Buc (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well you've got my opinion Buc, it's entirely up to you. But it shouldn't be there. Makes the article inherently out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Makes the article inherently out of date" well not having it makes it even more out of date. It's not really up to me, I don't own the article. It's a question of what most people want so (very reluctantly) I've allowed it to be removed but I still fail to understand how this make it a better article. Right now I would not support this nomination, and I made it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • While I admire your martyrdom to the cause, it's clear how it makes it a better article. There's a link to the current season. Job done. There's no need to replicate this information in a featured list as it will almost always be out of date. If you (or others) don't update the article it will be inherently inaccurate as the lead says "to the present day" which it almost certainly won't be (because you then go on to contradict yourself by adding a "Correct as of:..." date which would surely be unnecessary?)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a link to the current season at the top of the article. If people want to find info on the current season, they should go there, not to an overview article. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Fails criterion 1.e (stability). Nominator admits to disagreements with other significant editor as to content which they hope to sort out here. Might I respectfully suggest they take the list away and sort out their differences, or if they can't, perhaps discuss the matter at the WP:FOOTY project talk page.
    • I only thought there might be. I'll wait to see what he says when he see it has been nominated. Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile they could copyedit the lead, and have a look at some more recently successful featured seasons lists – Gillingham F.C. seasons and Bradford City A.F.C. seasons are two excellent examples – to see what they look like, what issues were raised at peer review and FLC, and whether this list could be improved accordingly. I'd recommend going to peer review, because FLC is supposed to be for lists ready, or very nearly ready, for featuring, not for those still needing a significant amount of work. Then when it reaches that stage, bring it back to FLC, where it would expect a much smoother ride. There's no time limit. Struway2 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with the lead? Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the things I mentioned are wrong with the lead. – PeeJay 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes thank you I have seen them but I was asking Struway. Buc (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet you still haven't addressed most of my issues. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead's improved since I made that comment, but the first paragraph is confusing, and the lead in general reads more like a list of facts that a piece of prose. I'd be happy to have a go at improving it, if you wanted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
    • "Attendance in all competitions (Football League or Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, European and other F.A. and Football League domestic cup competitions) at games classed as Home fixtures are counted towards the average. ." - copyedit.
    • Full stops needed in other references (just one will suffice).
    • Yes, Youth Cup doesn't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and comments
    • First there seems to be a bit of disagreement regarding the entry at the moment between the nominator and Chappy84.
    • I'd try bold up something in the first words as per WP:LEAD and make sure it's not linked.
      • Why shouldn't they be linked? Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not my rules. See the link I attached. Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it only need to be in bold it it's an offical name or title. Buc (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no references in the lead, although there's nothing contentious there. The only two statements which might need references are taking the place vacated by Leeds City Reserves and played their home games at Elland Road throughout their history
      • Added ref
        • I still can't see a reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • two prolonged spells - could you define prolonged spells? Otherwise this is vague.
      • 10-15 years I'd say. Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean define it here. Say what you mean in the article. Prolonged to one club isn't the same as prolonged to another. Say two spells of 10-plus years, if that's the case, or if you want prolonged two prolonged spells of 10-plus years. Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The club has and The club have. The lead needs to be checked to make sure all verbs are all singular/plural.
    • Managers and the unofficial Second World War Leagues are not included. I'm not sure you need this sentence - it implies to me the disagreement you've had about what to and what not to include.
      • Don't do any harm to have them in. Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DNQ for FA Cup. I presume this means did not qualify? One are you so they didn't qualify rather than didn't enter? Either way it needs an entry in the key.
      • Just what the old article said. Ask ChappyBuc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here you go. This link might help you out. [1] It appears you entered and then withdrew. Certainly worth a footnote in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would have to point out that the old article before the major change said Preliminary, as in Preliminary rounds. I used this page to find out how Leeds did in the F.A. Cup that season. As you can see Leeds beat Boothtown in the first qualifying round at Elland Road 5-2 then Leeds Steelworks in the second qualifying round at Elland Road 7-0, and then obviously withdrew as there are no more FA Cup results. ChappyTC 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestions have been made in the past to bold the Division when the club changes division.
      • Aston Villa F.C. seasons doesn't appear to have this.
        • Irrelevant. Several other FL's do, it's a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I notice this is now done. But you need to add it to the key. Plus add why are competitions bolded when Leeds won them. Why is the 95-96 Lge Cup bolded? Is this an error? Peanut4 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd change the round of the FA Cup to QF for when Leeds reached the quarter-final rather than R6 (for Round 6)
      • The F.A. Officially don't have a Quarter Final in the F.A. Cup. They call it the 6th round, as you can see on the official F.A. Site. ChappyTC 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the addition of avge attendance. Well done.
      • Thankyou, this took me quite some time to calculate from here when I originally created the previous incarnation of the article. ChappyTC 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the footnotes need full stops. One even has two.
    • I would add some footnotes about the relevant renaming of divisions for those who don't know what the Premiership / Championship / Lge One are and why the divisions don't match up properly when the divisions were changed.
      • Aston Villa F.C. seasons doesn't appear to have this. Buc (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't forget you're trying to make a featured article, accessible to all, not just something that WP:FOOTBALL types will benefit from. This kind of suggestion should be embraced, considered and implemented, not just dismissed out of hand because one specific FL doesn't have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a footnote for when the Football League divisions were renamed, what they were renamed from/to, and why they were renamed. ChappyTC 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Villa didn't need it; they haven't been in Division One/Championship since it was renamed. Woody (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a bit of work to do yet. I would echo what has been said above about taking it to PR first, though I see you did ask for some comments before you took if to FLC.
    • Never get any replies. I did ask other users about it before nominating. Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couple more comments
    • Footnote 7, re:play-offs. You could write two separate references to individualise each set of play-offs and who Leeds were defeated by in the final.
    • Footnote 11, re:administration. It probably ought to go in the points column rather than position column. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more. Footnotes 1 and 5 are repetitions. One of them isn't necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you now have ten references (in the style of external links really) - it'd be much better to relate these, if possible, to the specific areas of the article they are relevant to. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no, I think someone has misinterpreted what I mean. I didn't mean merge the footnotes and references sections, I meant, where possible, use the current list of external links to provide references in the article (e.g. the 1920-21 article must relate to something specific in the article so use it as a {{Cite web}} in-line rather than just as a general reference at the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Seeing as other people are prepared to give this a peer review here, I shall go with consensus.

  • For completeness, so that the list covers the entire history of the club, I'd include the 1919-20 Midland League season. Seeing as league data is readily available (here, as well as probably in your Leeds sources), there seems little point in omitting it. If the top scorer/attendance isn't available for that season, then add a note to say so.
  • I'd then restructure the lead, something like:

This is a list of seasons played by Leeds United Association Football Club in English and European football, from the club's formation in 1919 to the last completed season. It details the club's achievements in all major competitions, the top scorers and the average attendances for each season.

Leeds United A.F.C. were founded in 1919, following the dissolution of Leeds City F.C., and took the place in the Midland League vacated by Leeds City Reserves. Elected to the Second Division of the Football League for the 1920–21 season, they spent the next 87 years in the top two divisions before dropping into the third tier for the first time in 2007.

    • This doesn't tally with all the reports when they got relagated that they would playing in the third tier for the first time in there history. [2] Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've put dropping into the third tier for the first time in 2007. If they went into the Football League in 1920 and down into the 3rd tier in 2007, it is 87 rather than 88 years, that's the only thing different from what it says now. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have twice spent periods of over ten years in the top tier of English football, from 1964 to 1981 and from 1990 to 2004. (or instead of that last sentence, mention the great spell you had in the 1960s, which would then lead in to the para about what you won)

then talk about what they won, and mention always playing at Elland Road at the end of that para.

  • Division bolding on change should go in key rather than footnote.
  • You may want to indicate when your leading scorer was also top scorer in his division
    • They have never had one. I checked this when I was writing the table. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(information here) or when he set a club scoring record.

      • According to the link, John Charles was leading scorer in the 2nd Div in 1954 with 42, and in the 1st Div in 1957 with 38. Also Hasselbaink in the Prem in 1999 with 18. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For accuracy, it may be worth rephrasing the wartime gap to something like The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War, on the basis that the early rounds of the 1946 FA Cup were played in 1945.
  • You may want to add your leading scorer for the 1946 FA Cup, if known.
    • One for Chappy I think. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1970-71 Fairs Cup Trophy Play-off - shouldn't this be in the Europe column?
    • Well I've changed in but in doesn't half mess up the table. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think I've fixed that. Thanks for giving me a reason to look at it, I've taught myself stuff I didn't know about tables. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have thought the FMC Northern final was the semifinal of the FMC, so losing in it wouldn't be a runner-up result?
  • Footnote a bit of detail on the play-off results,
    • Is says they were runners up Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also wikilink play-off to the relevant article.

  • Link Champ to the relevant FL season article e.g. The Football League 2006-07, where these exist.
  • Footnote 12 - wikilink administration to something helpful.
  • Presumably the one remaining redlinked leading scorer will go blue soon?
  • Well done for getting your average attendances column to work. I tried to do it on Birmingham City F.C. seasons and had such trouble persuading Firefox to render it properly on my combination of small monitor and 1024x768 resolution that I gave up. Might try again, seeing as yours works perfectly well for me. Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restart
Would anybody object to me restarting this nom. In its current form (IE a PR, exactly the thing that FLC is not meant to be), it is impossible to work out who thinks what, and what is left to do. Woody (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that Raul job? Buc (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Raul has nothing to do with FL. Woody (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I think it should go to PR rather than be re-started. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I refuse to support this nomination until the information on the current season is removed from the table. There are other minor things, but this is the one major one. – PeeJay 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the stuff about the current season has been removed already. Buc (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeeJay. I'd personally rather see the current season removed. It's nothing more than misleading. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving

I am failing this nomination now. This has degenerated into a Peer review. This nom is too long and complicated to be of any use now. Woody (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Leeds_United_A.F.C._seasons/archive1&oldid=177904276"