Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players (1–24 appearances)/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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

List of Arsenal F.C. players (1–24 appearances)

 * Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal. Having checked the names, nationalities, and numbers, I feel this meets the criteria, hence the nom (hopefully someone here will cross check for any clangers). Again, I've modelled this on lists which have been promoted, and used the same database source for players as the main list. Welcome any sort of feedback, cheers...Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of quick comments, will return later.....
 * The article says "Since Arsenal's first competitive match, more than 500 players have made a competitive first-team appearance for the club", but above you say "Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal". So which is it?
 * The latter, corrected now. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "have failed to reach a quarter of appearances for the club" - very bizarre turn of phrase, nobody would ever refer to 25 games as "a quarter of appearances". Just say "25 appearances" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Have done. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In "They became the first southern member admitted into the Football League in 1893", why do the words "southern member" link to Southern Football League, a competition Arsenal have never played in or been associated with ? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed it; wanted to link Arsenal's southern ties to the 'Football in the south of England' section, but that might just be confusing altogether. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Is there are a particular reason for the omission of the goals column? This is standard in all lists of this type. Seems strange to me. NapHit (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Silly me, have added them now! Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "The list is ordered first by number of appearances in total, then if necessary by date of debut." It appears to be ordered by date of debut first to me
 * Shouldn't all defenders prior to 1960, have FB as their position instead of DF? Seeing as that is what the position key states.
 * Changed. Done the same for midfielders.


 * "and defunct competitions the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup..." this doesn't seem right to me. Need a better way of introducing the defunct competitions
 * I removed the defunct bit as it reads better just listing the competitions.


 * I think the position key should be sorted by position. So GK, FB, HB etc, would be more beneficial to the reader in my opinion
 * Done, feel free to change the table if something's wrong.

NapHit (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * link for 1893–94 season in note 1?
 * , cheers for your comments as ever, think I've addressed all your points now. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Thank for persisting, I feel this now now meets the criteria. One minor comment though: are wingers not generally regarded as midfielders rather than forwards? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For reasons of consistency I've decided to class wingers as forwards, given their role in the team pre 1960s was forward-like; I feel it would be wrong to class them as half-backs. Plus there are players like (Alex Iwobi), who have been positioned as a wide forward, and not like a wide midfielder. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review - passed
 * Spotchecks: Checked sources 2, 7, 12, 16 - all clear
 * Formatting: formatting is fine, though I personally would use links for publishers. Consider archiving your refs, just so you don't have to deal with it if any of the websites ever change the way they structure their pages. -- Pres N  21:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – I decided to take off my director hat to review this one and didn't find any real points of concern. Looks like a very nice list. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.