Talk:Ipswich Town F.C. in European football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIpswich Town F.C. in European football has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starIpswich Town F.C. in European football is part of the Ipswich Town F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2020Good article nomineeListed
April 15, 2020Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Attribution[edit]

This version of this article is based in part on material from this version of the List of Ipswich Town F.C. records and statistics article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA competition record by season table[edit]

In the UEFA competition record by season table, the placement of the Country column before the Club column, especially given the use of colourful flags, makes that column more prominent, and therefore seem more important than the Club column. In my opinion, it should be the other way around: what country the club was from is secondary information; the identification of the team is the key information. I would suggest swapping them over, and possibly getting rid of the flags too. Harrias talk 18:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, thanks for your comment. I think I'm going to revamp the summary altogether anyway, using the standard "football results" template. British Newspaper Archive is being my friend on getting hold of pertinent names etc. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, no worries. Keeping an interested eye on this one; one of my childhood friends was an Ipswich fan, so I've always had a slight soft spot... Harrias talk 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias it's going to be considerably longer than I expected! Ultimately going for FAC I think so the table is just a summary. Any help would be gratefully received! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong flag[edit]

I noticed that the country flag for Lokomitve Leipzig in the 73/74 season is the wrong Germany. It should be the one of the GDR and not the West German one, no? More importantly, i guess, it links to the wrong Germany as well. I would just do it myself but i have never done that and am not in the mood to fiddle around with it for 20 minutes and figure out how to only to find out there is some special guideline regarding countries that no longer exist or what have you lol. 84.189.235.124 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same for the 80/81 Bohemians game, should be Czecheslovakia instead of the Czech Republic. Totally forgot to mention that. 84.189.235.124 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated per your comment, it was actually quite straightforward, see my edit should you wish to try giving it a go yourself in the future! Thanks again! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to have 'helped out', if you can even call it that. And cheers for the diff. That is how i usually learn editing related stuff on Wiki. Find an example and just copy/modify it and use the preview function about two dozen times until it does what it should.  ;) 84.189.235.124 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's how we all did it early doors. Cheers, and please feel encouraged to help out on this or any other such topics, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the diff after breakfast and i did not realise how simple it was. Just an ordinary wikilink pretty much. I had not even looked into it but i thought there was a lot more to it... Now i feel a bit like an idiot because that i could really have figured out i think. Anyway, now i know, should it ever come up again. And have a good day. 84.189.235.124 (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ipswich Town F.C. in European football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures[edit]

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

General[edit]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)
    • Not much to go at here, TRM. Great work - I'd like to see the smaller paragraphs. If you could address a bit of the above I think we're done. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]