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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch 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

  • Any reason that v. for versus in put in italics? I'm not really sure it needs it.
    • Doing Not at all. It's a hangover from me mimicking the AFVC article. I'll remove them... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - Gone, replaced with "against" which is, after all, English! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a footnote to exactly what Other, for league apps and goals accounts to. Europe / the old Simod Cup / play-offs / LDV Vans (though I'm not sure Ipswich played in this / Anglo-Italian / Charity shield?
    • Doing Okay, I'll recheck source and add an appropriate note. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Rechecked and added a footnote for the competitions which constitute "other". LDV trophy? How DARE you...?!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was only winding you up really - I didn't expect you'd been in it. It's a quality tournament though. You should try it!! I've seen your note and now wonder where the play-offs come in? Are they within the league figures, which I suspect shouldn't be the case? Or should play-offs be included in this note? Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most World Cup goals while an Ipswich player: John Wark - 5 (1982). Should this be a comma or a dash?
  • Attendances section. Should it not be sixth round and first round, rather than 6th and 1st?
    • Doing I suppose so! I'll get onto it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - Fixed as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going back to this one, shouldn't it be sixth round, and possibly southern section first round? Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, I'm not German yet so it's now sixth round and Southern Section first round (which is a fair compromise, like Division Three (South) and all that). But I could (still) be wrong...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the records in this section were established during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Ipswich achieved success unparalleled in the club's history. Does the second half of this sentence need a reference?
    • Doing Don't remember writing that - I have a feeling one of my "colleagues" added that! I'll sort it... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of capitals for non-proper nouns. The Club and League, I think ought to be club and league.
  • Found something else. Some of the records are a little vague, e.g. in 19xx or in 19xx-19xx. Can you find more exact dates? Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing - Yeah, I'm sure I can, I'll get on to that when I do the checks on the "other" appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - I think I've got all specific dates now. Please point me to ones I've missed! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep all good.
  • One more. Bet your nearly sick of me? Do you need to use the word 'finally' in relation to Jurgen Klinsmann beating John Wark's record? It reads the same without the word. Peanut4 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - Not sick at all. I want to hone this article to defeat the denizens of FAC who will try to defeat me! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.....

  • Shrink the huge picture of Mick Mills a bit
  • "The club was founded in 1878 and have played at their current home ground, Portman Road, since 1884." - club used both as singular and plural in the same sentence, one needs changing
  • In the appearances table, presumably the number of sub appearances is included in the total, eg for John Wark it's 533 league apps including 6 as sub rather than plus 6 as sub? Might want to clarify that via a note.....
    • Doing - I will double check before I commit to it but no doubt you're right. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I might butt in, certainly for Mick Mills it's 737 plus 4 as sub making 741 total. Struway2 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not done - Indeed - Struway2 is bang on (as ever). The totals are starts (subs) so adding them together gives you the total. I agree that this may be confusing though. What do we think? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why Reading isn't wikilinked against "First FA Cup match".....?
  • "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.....
  • "Ipswich held the record for longest unbeaten record....." - shouldn't it be "the record for the longest....."?
  • In the footnote about "other" comps, maybe consider wikilinking them? And maybe replace "the Simod Cup and the Zenith Data Systems Cup" with simply "the Full Members Cup".....?
    • Doing - I think I may keep Simod and ZDS (more informative?!) but yes, I'll link the others... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - I opted for Full Members Cup once I'd realised the Simod was redirected... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ipswich Town qualified for the preliminary round of the 2002–03 UEFA Cup via the fair-play route" - maybe clarify what this actually means, for the benefit of non football fans....?

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

Comments from Struway2[edit]

  • Lead. Are "top goalscorer and most appearances" "major playing honours"? "Club records" rather than "The club records" (I'd guess that's how "The Club records" from the Villa lead should have been corrected, anyway.) Though in your position I'd rewrite the first paragraph from scratch rather than trying to adapt theirs.
    • Doing - Okay, I'll rewrite from scratch I think. Good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - I've had a bit of a go. I'd appreciate some pointers on expanding it if possible! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honours. Think you should include runners-ups as well as wins. The MoS says you should include wins and second places in the main club article honours section, albeit with the proviso that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places. There's no shortage of space here.
    • Done - Yeah, no shortage of space, good one!!!! Ok, so two second places in the First Division now added... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower level headings. You could perhaps format the level 4 headings as ;Heading-wording instead, to cut down the TOC a bit.
    • Done
  • Appearances table. Why are the substitute appearances in italics?
  • Where your numbers are of different lengths, like in the League Cup apps column, they don't sort in numerical order. (also Scorers table)
  • International caps. If you added a sentence to the effect that This section refers only to caps won while an Ipswich Town player, you wouldn't have to keep mentioning it, sometimes twice a line, in the list bit.
  • Is the first Uruguayan to play in the Premier League really that notable? (only asking)
    • Not done - Well it's unusual, but bordering on trivia... we'll see when I go to FL (where I'm sure you'll bring it up again!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer fee tables. Are the names supposed to sort on first name rather than surname?
  • Richard Wright's Wiki article says £6m, citing this BBC article.
  • Club records Firsts. League Cup should be capitalised. Generally in this section, it wouldn't hurt to put the league division or cup round as appropriate.
  • European Record by season. Presumably you give Ipswich's score first even in the away leg, wouldn't hurt to say so. PR=Prelimi(n)ary.
  • European Record by comp and by location tables. The Totals row sorts to the top when you sort descending. If you add class="sortbottom" to the |- line for the Totals row, that should cure it. See Help:Sorting#Excluding the last row from sorting
    • Done - Brilliant, I've learned something today, made it worth getting out of bed!! Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • I see you've unitalicised the appearances in brackets in the goalscorers table as well. I'd have left them, on the basis the italics help to distinguish between goals and apps, which are two distinct things, as supposed to starting and substitute appearances, which aren't. (This isn't me being bloodyminded, I said the same, only rather more clearly, at the Villa PR). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You, bloody-minded??! Never! Not a problem, a fair point, they're going back RIGHT NOW! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, re table widths.

  • The fixed widths in the Appearances and Goalscorers tables add up to 109%, which not unreasonably the system truncates once it reaches 100%. This explains why the Totals column in the Goalscorers table looks particularly cramped. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I thought I was good at this maths malarky... thanks for the spot! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - I think they add up to 100% now and all relevant cols have same width. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreview[edit]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
    • If i might butt in, simply changing to "in the World Cup Finals" (the rather than a) might work. Or just "in a World Cup". The FIFA World Cup article uses both of these. I'd agree "in a World Cup Finals" sounds wrong. Struway2 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - I've adopted the "in the World Cup Finals" approach. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about adding most sub appearances? Possibly a bit trivial?
    • Not done - I think this is bordering on trivial now, especially as I supposedly saying this is a list of the significant stats...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • Not done - Again, a little too trivial I think, plus, as you say, the sourcing is going to be a challenge...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

    • Comment no 3. I'd never heard of the Third Division North Cup or Division Three North Cup till a couple of months ago when I found out we won it. I guess this is the Southern equivalent. Only a guess mind, but that's my tuppence worth on the name of this cup. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, there's next to nothing on the interweb about it - what was your source Peanut? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try fchd. Struway2 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Got it. And it was the second round (but the first round Ipswich took part in getting a bye) - I've modified the name accordingly in the article and then added the fchd as another source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_Ipswich_Town_F.C._statistics_and_records/archive1&oldid=651347897"