Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent/archive1


 * 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 11:57, 8 April 2012.

Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent

 * Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the layout of the Luton Town and the recently promoted Liverpool league record by opponent FLs. Please feel free to pick holes... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Believe this meets requirements set by the Liverpool, Luton Town and recently passed Manchester United FLC. Nice work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Seems like "their" or another word is missing from "Birmingham have recorded most league victories against Leicester City".
 * Reworded as "Birmingham have recorded more league victories against Leicester City than against any other club, having beaten them 50 times out of 120 attempts." Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is a page number possible for reference 1? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks for noticing. Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support reluctantly I tried to catch out some of the maths, failed. Prose is good, can find no flaw. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Just one query, ref 5 you have another link directly below it, but it's not formatted as a reference. Firstly, does the first ref not render the second one obsolete? Secondly, if it doesn't, why is it not formatted like the other refs? Other than the list is fantastic, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's two sources supporting the same fact, one source from each "side", as it were, Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and MK Dons FC. See WP:CITEBUNDLE which explains why we might want to lump them together rather than having a string of separately cited sources. Admittedly, two refs on the end of a footnote doesn't clutter up any prose, but I've got into the habit of doing it that way when more than one source verifies the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I was curious as to why it was formatted that way as I've never seen it done before. MOS clarifies this, so no problem. NapHit (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support – Great work. I redid the Wimbledon footnote but apart from that this looks positively fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the note. Don't think I could have got it more comprehensively wrong if I'd tried :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.