Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. seasons/archive1

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. seasons[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another list based on the football club seasons format. I have studied those that are featured and applied the layout to this one with a few touches of my own - the "Level" column was a no-brainer to me because of all the different names there are these days, so it'll benefit people who aren't really familiar with the English football league system.

I would like to make sure everything checks out before nominating it for featured status.

Thanks, Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Comments The main problem is, standards have risen. Even the better existing FLCs wouldn't pass today without at least some work.

I don't review prose if I can avoid it, but one thing: FLs these days don't say "This is a list of...". Suggest moving those sentences dealing with the scope of the table out of the opening para and down with the number of seasons spent in each division, as per here, which has changed a bit since the version that passed FLC a couple of years ago

Done.

A warning: some FL reviewers are very keen on having the key before the table rather than after

I don't really understand why but I'll leave it the way it is for now.

Headings: capital letters only at first word of each heading, unless it's the name of something, so "League record" (small "r") but "League Cup" (big "C"); write attendance in full, or someone'll want you to supply a note to explain the abbreviation :-)

Done, schoolboy error that one!.

Level: you'll need to explain why it only applies from 1920/21

I spent a fair bit of time thinking about how to word it without going into far too much detail, so I decided stick with the tried and tested format on this one.

Division/Pos: linking both to the same article is overlinking, probably preferable to link the position rather than the division

Done.

The Western League ought to appear in the League section, as at List of FC Barcelona seasons, where the regional Campionat de Catalunya runs alongside La Liga in the 1930s. You've said in the prose that it was a less prestigious comp, but it was still a first-team league, and at least in 1903/4, which is the only season I looked at, Argyle fielded the same players in each.
Done.
Presumably you've checked if any of the 3 unlinked early goalscorers are notable for playing for other teams in the FL, if they were they should be redlinked rather than unlinked.
I planned on creating pages for them when I have what I need, a book, since I've found barely anything online which even tells me their first names. I believe Swann's first name could be Hubert but I don't have concrete information at this moment in time.
1914: Not strictly true that no competitive football was played during the war, it was just different competitive football :-) Maybe "The Southern League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War", and "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War"?
Its funny, when I was improving this article I followed the lead set by those for Gillingham and Birmingham in particular, I guess I should've followed the latter more. Done.
1939: Suggest including the aborted 1939/40 season, in italics or whatever
Done.
1945/46: is when the FA Cup resumed
True, I've included that along with results in the Football League South - I remember we used atleast 70 players that season, no wonder we finished last!.
Other comps: maybe write out in full, to save the reader having to keep scrolling up and down between string of random letters and key
Done.
Green/pink: you may need some additional indication for people who can't do colours. The level column could well be enough, but you might need a symbol as a direct accessible alternative to the colouring. In the past, people have bolded changes of division, which may not be MoS-compliant these days, depending on who you're asking.
I've bolded changes in division for now. If I need to add a symbol in future then so be it.
Key to rounds: don't think Round should be capitalised
Done.
Footnotes: those that aren't just explanatory or verified by the list itself, need sources. And please consider a more normal-sized font. 90% is very small for those of us whose eyes aren't what they were
This is the very time consuming part but I'm happy to do it because it certainly adds alot to the Birmingham article. I'm laying out the footnotes now in the same manner, but if the font needs changing then I guess they all will?
Your wording of footnote H could imply that before the change to 3 pts for a win, no points were awarded for a draw. I know that's not what you mean, but suggest you re-word it. Also, there's an article called three points for a win
I could see people assuming that. I'll do that note when I get that far.
FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, [the list] has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". Is there anything interesting, quirky, needing explanation, that might be worth footnoting as "useful and appropriate information"?
Plenty, but I'll try not to go overboard.
Sources in general (this is the one that most existing season lists wouldn't satisfy): the reader shouldn't have to guess where the information came from. It would be best if you put at the top of each column/group of columns in the table, a reference to the source used for that column/group. I'd assume FCHD does all the league and real cups stuff, and presumably Danes' book will do whatever cups are missing. If it also does the top scorer and the average attendance, you're laughing, up to the end of 2008/9, anyway... If there's just the occasional exception, it can be referenced individually at its table cell rather than at the top of the column
Done.
A reviewer might ask what makes Football Facts and Figures and Greens on Screen reliable sources. Do you use either to source anything that can't be verified elsewhere (FCHD, book)? if not, suggest moving them to External links
I've just discovered Footballsite.co.uk and plan on including plenty of citations to it, so I hope it is reliable? It certainly looks like it anyway, with the amount of effort that has been put into it. Greens on Screen has been running for twelve years and has received plenty of praise on When Saturday Comes, for instance, but I don't believe I'll need to cite anything directly to it, so I'll do what you suggested.

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, its appreciated. You won't see any considerable change on the article right now because I'm doing it all in one of my sandboxes, here. I'd rather do it all in one go instead of making hundreds of edits to the page itself'. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst its still open, is there anywhere that its lacking now? Its been significantly improved thanks to Struway2's advice and I've added the 2009–10 season now that the league campaign has finished. I would've inquired about this yesterday but I wasn't really in the mood for talking! Thank you for your time. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]