Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brighton & Hove Albion 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 20:12, 19 December 2011 [1].

---

List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons

List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons/archive1

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this list very intermittently for about 18 months, and having recently reviewed another list of this type, and paying close attention to the comments I left there (and those of other reviewers, to be fair), thought it was about time this one was submitted. Any comments will be addressed promptly. Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Haven't read through the prose yet, but a few initial comments from the table: For the 1920–21 season, the ex-Southern League clubs formed the Third Division: Division 3 South came along the following year. I knew that... fixed There's some inconsistency between footnotes for specific matches. It's understandable to have footnotes for the 1909–10 cup wins, and I also understand the argument for a losing FA Cup final footnote. But my conflict of interest notwithstanding, I don't see why the 2008–09 Football League Trophy Southern final merits a footnote, but not the losing Southern Charity Cup finals. You'd remove the FLT F(S), rather than adding the losing SPCCs? I think either of those approaches would be fine, as long as the list is internally consistent. In answer to your question, my approach in the Watford list was to only add a footnote where the cell alone didn't explain the team's progress. 3rd* doesn't tell the full story if the team reaches the playoffs; SF doesn't reveal the full story if there is a third place playoff, or if you pull out of a competition to make St Albans feel better. —WFC— 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC) That makes sense. Can't remember reading anything unusual about the losing SPCC finals, so I'll probably remove the FLT note. Will check in the book, but it's only available in the reference section of my library, so I can't borrow it. Note [u] (best performance in the League Cup) seems somewhat redundant in a sortable table. Removed: it's mentioned in the lead, and as you say obvious from the table if one sorts that column. Not wanting to start this again (honest) but I wish I knew whether the general reader ever does sort columns in a table like this. Probably worth clarifying that Leon Knight's 25 Division Two goals in 2003–04 doesn't include the play-off goal. Done. Even added a ref for Sky Sports Yearbook doing it that way. Other than those relatively trivial things, the referencing, footnoting and sort function appear to be very good. I'll go through the prose at another time. —WFC— 14:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your review so far, for not finding all the mistakes in the table, probably, and for fixing the key. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Prose was never my strong point, and I'm satisfied that others have that covered. —WFC— 09:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on "for cinema showing". It's not that unusual a phrase (see e.g. [2], [3], [4]) and I'm not sure I could think of anything better. "for showing in cinemas" or "to be shown in cinemas" is a bit simple English, "for cinema audiences" is the phrase used in the source. Could you suggest an improvement, or a paraphrase? For cinematic release? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Done, thank you "before losing to West Ham United " which round did they actually get to before being beaten by West Ham? added (last 16) "first time. Against Manchester United, the scores" I would move that full stop, the "Against Manchester United.." reads oddly to me. "first time, against Manchester United. The scores..." It read oddly to me as well, but again, I couldn't think of anything better... How about "In 1983, for the first time, they reached the FA Cup Final, in which they played Manchester United. The scores..."? Perhaps I missed it in the prose but I'm a shade confused over the logistics of playing in two divisions simultaneously as happened in the early days. Worth an explanation? Something to the effect of: clubs used to arrange friendlies on days when they didn't have a main league/cup game, to keep the players fit, try out new ones, and make sure the paying public keep turning up. Having a second league to play in was an easier (as there was a captive market for opponents) and hopefully less financially risky (no need to pay opponents a guarantee to get them to come) alternative to arranging friendlies. The secondary leagues tended to play midweek: the Southern Football Alliance was explicitly a midweek league. I'll add a sentence when I've got access to the book again for references (tomorrow, weather permitting) added Is there a reason you link the finishing position to the division's season article, and not the division name itself? Because I did on List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons and nobody suggested that then? or, I never considered doing it differently. Of the English seasons lists promoted since that one, Hull City links the finishing position, and the promoted versions of Plymouth Argyle and Watford didn't have links to division/season articles at all. Do you think it should be changed? Seasons template need en-dashes for year ranges. done Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – History: What is "the rivalry between the teams has been as keen as ever" referring to? We haven't heard of a rivalry yet in the article, and now we find out about it without knowing the other club. It doesn't refer to rivalry with another club. It means that the general competitive standard of individual matches in the league didn't decline, that other teams didn't stop trying just because there was little chance of their catching runaway winners BHAFC. Could move the Football League link up a paragraph in this section, to its first appearance. done When sorting for position in the table, did you intentionally leave the 1939–40 season out because it wasn't complete? That would explain why it isn't sorting in the right order. No... Like all the sorting markup, I copied it from List of Watford F.C. seasons, without really thinking about why it was different :-( Having now thought, I don't see much point in sorting that particular column of an incomplete season differently from the others, so it's changed back to normal formatting. Thank you for pointing it out. Note 25: Remove hyphen from "newly-formed"? Hmmm. One of these days I'll stop doing that... Giants2008 (Talk) 03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments "As a Football League team, the team have won..." not keen on team being used twice in close proximity would simply change the second use of team to Brighton changed to Albion "and seven years later the team made a brief return to Division Two." probably needs a reference added ref 19 needs the author included It was there, but there was a typo in the cite template parameters that stopped it being displayed: thanks for noticing Why isn't the Sky Sports Yearbook included in the bibliography? The two Carden & Harris books and Camillin & Weir are major general references, so I put them in a bibliography (which might just as easily have been a general references sub-section) to avoid having to repeat the full details of each book every time they were referenced. Admittedly Camillin & Weir is down to only two inline refs now, I think, but in an older version of the list, there were several others. The Sky Sports Yearbook and Soccer at War in ref#27 are used only once each. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cliftonian (talk)

Comments – This is mere personal preference: I would pipe the link on the opening wikilink, expanding it to read "Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club". Like I say, however, ths is just my own preference. I was going to say not done, because it made the opening line overly repetitive, except that here and here the repetition clearly didn't bother me... So done I would rework this part: "The scores were level at 2–2 until the last moments of extra time, when Albion's Gordon Smith – to the accompaniment of the radio commentator's "And Smith must score..." – failed to beat the goalkeeper. Albion lost the replay 4–0,[18] and were relegated that same season.[4]" Try: "The scores were level at 2–2 until the last moments of extra time, when Albion's Gordon Smith had a clear chance to score a winning goal. Peter Jones's radio commentary of the moment become famous: "and Smith must score..." he cried, just before Smith's shot was blocked by the goalkeeper's legs. Albion lost the replay 4–0,[18] and were relegated that same season.[4]" You're right this bit needed more detail. I've added your wording, but I'm not keen on the "he cried": sounds a touch cheap-novel. Can't think of anything better, though. And added another source for the enduring fame of Peter Jones's soundbite: Clive Tyldesley calling it "The most memorable bit of FA Cup commentary". I would also combine this whole paragraph with the previous one – you have two very short paragraphs in between two longer ones and it looks and reads a bit strangely in my opinion. Done Otherwise, this is excellent work which I am sure I will be more than happy to support following the resolution of these minor concerns. Well done! —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Thank for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – I agree that "cried" sounds a bit odd; I agonised for a while over what word to use, but "said" just didn't seem to do it. If you think of something better by all means replace it. In the meantime, I'm supporting this promotion. Well done! —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.