Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Amsterdam Tournament/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 16:16, 23 September 2010 [1].

Amsterdam Tournament[edit]

Amsterdam Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen this I felt compelled to do one myself. I believe that it meets all specified criteria. Cheers. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The refs seem a bit repetitive, using {{Harv}} maybe would've been more appropriate... otherwise, nicely done. -- œ™ 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick response. I haven't seen {{Harv}} used in my field of expertise before, interesting.
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* I'm glad the Gamper got you going. Sandman888 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hadn't crossed my mind before I saw your effort, so thanks.
  • link "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation" first time around.
    • Linked.
  • innovative use of table legend.
    • Thanks, I like avoiding white space if possible.
  • why did you split the stats table in two?
    • I thought readers might want to sort winners and "also-rans" separately. It would be straight-forward to merge them if needs must.
  • "winners" seems to be randomly sorted initially.
    • They're listed chronologically if teams are tied.
      • If I sort by total and then by winners I no longer get the original listing (IE on XP). Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be because its listing them in order of wins and then total, unless I'm missing something? As far as I'm aware you can't reset a sorting table without refreshing the page - that is what I do anyway. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe that the initial sorting should be available after re-sorting without refreshing. Why don't you just sort them by wins and then totals to start with? Sandman888 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done.
  • no scores?
    • What do you include and what do you leave out? In its current format, its possible for the winner and runner-up not to play each other.

Thanks for the comments. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments on an otherwise fine list:
    • "... while Belgium has produced the most individual winners; four. One more than England and Netherlands." — I'd replace the semicolon and period with commas, thus joining the two related sentences;
      • Done.
    • I would much prefer that winners and non-winners be presented and sorted in a single table. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Four teams participate in the competition, which has been in a league" maybe "...competition, played in a league..."
Done.
  • "Since its return in 1999," not convinced you need to repeat this information which you gave some two sentences ago..
Removed year to avoid repetition.
  • "Ajax's main domestic rivals" I think we all know they're the "main" rivals, but without sourcing, this could be misconstrued as POV, so maybe just leave it as "Ajax's domestic rivals"?
Done.
  • You link Belgium, but you didn't link Belgian, which appeared a few lines beforehand...
Delinked for consistency.
  • Q: Is there any guide to who was invited? I noted my lot were invited after winning the FA Cup. What about the others?
I couldn't find anything reliable. The first tournament included Molenbeek as Belgian champions, but Feyenoord and Barcelona didn't appear to win anything in the previous season.
  • Cruyff caption, could you put some dates on his involvement please?
Added that he scored once in the first tournament.
  • Typically we expand and link RSSSF in the references as it's a bit nebulous for non-experts.
Should I definitely link RSSSF in each reference? I thought it might be considered overlinking. I've added its full name while its linked at the top as a general reference.
Okay, that's fine by me, I missed it, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 34 to 38 need an en-dash, not spaced hyphens.
Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 05:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • Was there a competition this year? If so, why isn't it included?
  • Remove comma immediately after first use of Arsenal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No there wasn't one for 2010. Ajax were involved in the third qualifying round of the Champions League this season, which took place when the tournament is played, so I believe that is the reason. It says on the Dutch version that the competition was taking a one year break due to Ajax's busy fixture schedule. Removed the comma. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:31, 19 September 2010 (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/Amsterdam_Tournament/archive1&oldid=1138478962"