Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Premier League Player of the Month/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 promoted by The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [1].

Premier League Player of the Month[edit]

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

It's been a while since I nominated once of these, but I got working on this today and have completely revamped it from its former state. I hope I remembered any new FLC requirements (like alt text etc.) and I apologise if I didn't. Thanks in advance for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Martin tamb (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the shared awards was counted as half award? I personally would count them as a full award for both players, similar to the NBA All-Star MVP Award. However, I don't know what's the usual counting methods on shared awards in football. — Martin tamb (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't think there is a precedent, but a shared award indicates to me that the one award is halved out (not award doubled up). Usually if there is prize money attached to an award that is split equally in the case of a shared award. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good enough for me. Also note that I have separated the shared awards into two separate rows for better sorting abilities. — Martin tamb (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWA and PFA need to be spelled out on their first use on the prose.
  • Since you have 'Win by nationality' and 'Win by club' section, it might be worth mentioning in the prose that England and Manchester United players won most awards, and perhaps France as the foreign country who won the most awards.
Other than that, the list is great, alt text looks fine, great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • Robert Pirès' article stated that his main position is a winger or attacking midfielder, but he is listed here as a forward.
  • Sylvain Wiltord's article stated that his main position is forward (at the lead prose), but he is listed here as a midfielder.

Other than these two, all others players' position checked out fine, nice addition to the list. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for looking through them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the lead, there are several mentions of "presently" / "most recent", with no indication of when "now" is (bearing in mind the most recent entry in the list is five screens away...)
Personally I think the present Barclay name is fine as is, but I've added an {{As of}} for the most recent recipient. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough
  • The second para could do with a copyedit.
Might be me being thick, or just because it's hard to copyedit when I wrote it, but I see no problems here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 2 sponsorships and a sponsor within 14 words, and "There already existed..." seemed an awkward way to start a sentence. Could turn that one round to say "Carling introduced new Manager of the Month and Manager of the Year awards for the 1993–94 season, to supplement (or complement, or add to) the existing Football Writers' Association and Professional Footballers' Association Player of the Year awards." Just varies the word order a bit, the prose in award lists is always desperately repetitive. But if I'm the only critic, then leave it how it is :-)
Done both. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions only have a full stop (period) if they are complete sentences, so some of them shouldn't.
I did know that I'm just rubbish at identifying which is which. Is it correct now? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robbie Keane: either remove the full stop, or remove the "who", thus making it into a complete sentence, and leave the full stop
Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to link entries in the year column, you have to link them all, with the table being sortable.
  • Do the month and year need to be in separate columns? was just wondering why anyone would want to sort all the Januarys together. (Wouldn't expect you to change it, just wondering why.)
With respect to both of those do you want me to go to a format like this (the first few rows). I can, but it is a long laborious manual task so it won't be an instant change. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it doesn't look clearer with the month and year separate, however pointless. If it was me, I'd leave the format as it is, and either link all the years to their season if I thought they were valuable links, or delink them if I didn't.
Done. All linked. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the key is only one item, could you move it to the top so we can see it before we come across the mark in the table? Also, could you change it to a different punctuation mark, an asterisk or dagger or something: when I first noticed it (against Edu) I saw it as a diacritic, and even now I know what it's for I can't help interpreting it as something to click on to go up the page :-)
Done, it wasn't my choice in the first place. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple winners etc tables. Don't like halfs: Shearer won it 4 times, as his picture caption says, even if somebody else won as well in one of those months. Think the prize money (if any) argument is a red herring.
Question. I have done this for the individual awards, but when English Liverpool clubmates Fowler and Colymore share the award in Jan 96 is it really right to count it as two Liverpool and two England awards? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be original research (or something) to do otherwise? their shared wins would surely count to their club/country had they occurred in different months. I might just be irrationally prejudiced against the idea of ½ an award, but if it said 4 (1 shared) rather than 3½ it might not be unreasonable to sort 4 above 4 (1 shared). Though to be serious, if you kept the halves, you'd need to note at the By club table why Liverpool have 16 entries in the main list but that only counts for 15 in the By club table, and you'd be doing well if you made it sound convincing and not like original research
Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on halves, the number columns in the Wins per club/country tables don't sort properly.
Will fix/remove pending answer to my above question. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References. Some of your archive mirrors have the wrong archived-on dates, probably comes of c&p'ing a long citation template :-)
Done I'm sure I doubled checked these, obviously not or perhaps I didn't save it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #4 BBC "Why Carling called time on Premiership" has an author who should be credited. There may be others.
Done. Good spot, because the BBC don't usually list them. I checked the other beeb ones too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With BBC pages, Premier League match reports and analytical-type articles generally do have authors, lower-league match reports and straight reporting generally don't. I only bother checking anything that looks like it falls in the former category. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links. The Premier League one gives an error page, and the premiershiplatest one thinks for ages and then comes up with a blank page.
Done. Removed section. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, have you considered having a column for playing position (not detailed, just basic Goalkeeper/Defender/Midfielder/Forward). Wonder whether winners by playing position might be at least as relevant a breakdown as by country.
Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets criteria, as far as I can tell. One more suggestion, would the list usefully belong in Category:Lists of football (soccer) players? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it would not be a useful category. All of Category:English football trophies and awards are stand-alone lists in the sense that not only are they an "article" about the award, they are also the list of winners. So in that sense I think the "English football trophies and awards" category is almost a kind of subcat of "Lists of football (soccer) players". Maybe something needs renaming though? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Overlinking: I don't see the need for two Premier League links in the lead, or two of Manager of the Month.
  • "The inaugural season had no sponsor until Carling agreed a four-year for 12m that started the following season." Huh? A few words appear to be missing from here.
  • "with France being the foreign country that has the most wins." This is an awkward structure, as can often happen when "with" and "-ing" are this closely connected.
  • The Ref column in the table doesn't need to be sortable.
  • Wins per position: Sorting from lowest to highest is off, instead sorting by what the first number is.
  • The BBC Sport references should not have the publisher in italics, since they are not from a printed publication. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've have done all of these except the last point because the publisher is the BBC, and {{cite web}} says "work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work.". Here BBC Sport is part of the larger BBC website, and this BBC Sport FAQ states that the BBC owns the copyright (publisher). With respect to the other points, I can only apologise for how many problems this list has had. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – No need to apologize; I've seen lists with far worse problems than this one. I made one further grammar fix to help this along, and everything else appears in order. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Just wondering if you could move the Gerrard image to the lead as he's the top dog here and it would (in my opinion) enhance the aesthetics of the list to have a lead image.
Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the way sponsor is linked to a very specific part of the Prem League article while the next use (sponsorship) is linked to a generic definition of the word.
Done. Also the link target is hopefully clearer now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and France are the foreign country that has the most wins" I know what you're saying but this seems an odd way of saying it. Perhaps something about overseas players from France winning more than any other non-English country? I dunno, that's not much better. But can you see what I'm saying?
Any better? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to promise me to update the winner on a month-by-month basis with that last sentence of the lead!
I will, and it also would populate the relevant out of date category. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first Player of the Month award for August 1994" (caption) - perhaps "in August 1994" rather than "for"?
Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miniature thought about sorting the positions - you have, in the key, listed positions from back to front (very logical from a footballing perspective) but sorting the position col goes alphabetically which isn't quite as logical for me. No big deal, just a thought.
Okay, that shouldn't be too much hastle with AWB. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it's my settings but I could use one or two more images down the right-hand side.
I'll have a look around for a couple more, but I'm keen not to fill it up with poor quality images just for the sake of it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries, I stumbled on a nice John Terry image (on his article), that just made me think about it...
Here are a few more. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've been "reminded" on the hat-trick list, can you prove those players you have indicated as "current" players are, indeed, current?
I think this is okay here as I don't have your international retirement issue to cross. Actually conveniently all those players are not injured and they all played in their clubs last Premier League fixture (lucky me!). I can get sources if you need but I just checked them all on fantasy football. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to the Premier League hat-trick article, not the England one...! So while I'm happy with it, be prepared that other's won't be... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another mega-minor one - I'd prefer "Wins by position" rather than "per position"...
Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot believe that Marcus Bent won this award. Perhaps that month should be scratched out forever...
Question. Would a footnote something like "Despite winning Player of the Month, Bent has been relegated with four different clubs!" be appropriate? :p Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of forwards 68 awards..." - my grammar skills are lacking but should there be an apostrophe there somewhere e.g. forwards' 68 awards?
Done. They are less lacking than mine! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice use of the archive field in the cite web template.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I believe I've addressed them. Let me know if you have anything else to add. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a typo in this alt text: "He has short black hair, green eyes, and is perspiration is visible on his forehead". Eveything else looks good, so I am happy to support on the assumption that you will fix the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks for the support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from – PeeJay 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
**Is there a reference to support the fact that Carling established their own "manager of the month" and "manager of the year" awards? Attaching a reference to Jurgen Klinsmann winning the inaugural award would also be helpful. (lead section, paragraph 2) I also think that a reference may be required for the mention of Torres' win. (lead section, paragraph 3)
    • The references that indicate the maths used to determine that over half of the winners have been English and most of the awards have gone to players of "Big Four" teams (currently References #9 and #10) should probably be migrated to the footnotes section.
    • I have modified the BBC and Premier League references to include both "work" and "publisher" information.
    • Other than those things, this is looking like a superb list, and I would be happy to support once the above changes are put in place. – PeeJay 10:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Done all of these. I actually think adding "|work=premierleague.com" is wrong because I've been told before at FAC that websites are not a work and should not be italicised, however it is a minor detail and I will leave it as is. Thanks for your comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • I feel section headers such as "wins by x" sound like games won rather than awards; perhaps you can say "awards won by x"?
  • Change the "Year" column to "Season".
  • The key in the Multiple winners column should be above the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done the bookends, but for the middle one although the link is to the season there is no 1999 season, therefore I think if you changed the column header to season then the year 1998 would need changing to 1997–98 or 1998–99 as appropriate, which is in my opinion clutter. Do you have any further thoughts on this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Premier_League_Player_of_the_Month/archive1&oldid=1138488583"