Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona records and statistics/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 Dabomb87 14:32, 21 August 2010.

List of FC Barcelona records and statistics

 * Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This has gone through PR. It has just been merged with List of FC Barcelona honours (that seemed to be the consensus), which was also through PR. It's based on the other FL stats-pages. Comments are welcome! Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I have informed all non-usual reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews.


 * Comment—a dab link to River Plate; no dead external links. Ucucha 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * fixed Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak Support—The list is logical and understandable. It appears to be properly cited. My only concern is that the list may not be of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. Reg. "general interest", there exist a long-established consensus on WP:FOOTY that these list are appropiate. It is also used in the existing featured topics on football.Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandman, there is definitely consensus for doing it in this way. As a side note, if the statistics of one of the biggest sports clubs in the world isn't general interest, then I've wasted a heck of a lot of time on various Hertfordshire, Watford and Seattle Sounders lists! --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote from "Weak Support" to "Support". I still have the concern whether this list is of general interest, but that probably says more about my general lack of interest in sports, than on whether the list is of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment What makes The-Sports.org and Soccerlens.com reliable sources? All other refs look good, and nice touch in #43. Not sure why that isn't more commonplace. --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced with LFP and NY Times. Thanks! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments : Been trying to find enough time to give this a proper review but it's not going to happen, sorry, so a few quick comments only. The arbitrary nature of the content of records and statistics lists makes them difficult to review quickly


 * In the record scores and wins part, there's an awful lot of best wins and winning streaks but not much worst losses and losing streaks
 * There's also a list of trophies won, but not of how many not-won. :)
 * I think that longest losing streaks should be provided alongside longest winning streaks, and that longest run without winning should be provided alongside the longest undefeated streaks. This will add context to the achievements, and in nearly all cases. For instance, your Longest unbeaten run at home in League matches is 67 games. Admittedly I'm guessing, but I imagine that the longest winless run at the Nou Camp in La Liga is closer to 6 or 7 games. --WFC-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * longest winless run at Nou Camp is 5 in la liga. longest non-winning away-run 10. both added :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm too busy to give this FLC any more time. It's concerning that I'm still finding tables like the one mentioned above that are basically unsourced. Again, apologies for not being able to complete the job I started. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Dabomb asked me to return, so I have.
 * Again I'm sorry, I've should have written I was on it. Thanks for the review so far though! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did the losing streaks go?
 * It can be included depending upon the answer to below. I'm not sure whether this is against or within wikipedia policy. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please restore the reference to FC Barcelona's records page to the top of the Team records section. That source is better than none, and some of them still have none. It'd be easy to do if there were any prose in the section. Perhaps a sentence saying "FC Barcelona's team records include the following:" (insert reference here) and hope it really does cover the unsourced ones...
 * Hmm this touches on a delicate subject. Is it reasonable to back up a claim with a finite number of sources? I could of course cite all of the other seasons to prove that the 2002-03 season is the season with lowest point-tally, with 3 points for a win. Wikipedia policy demands verifiability, and it is possible to verify the claim, although its extensive. So is a qoute to the season enough? Should I also note a "access other seasons via the search button" ? Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the All-time most appearances table ever had a source for those being the all-time most appearances? If you can't find a better one, use http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/segarra.html
 * used Segarra. I know there exists a better one. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise the All-time overall scorers? neither of the cited sources above that table verify it. Try http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/escola.html . It says Escola was 5th all-time, so if the other four have more goals, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume those are the top five
 * Found better source. Even included the original top-scorers breakdown now. Much better. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning to Weak support. I haven't given this list a full review. It would take too long, given that AFAIK there's no established consensus as to what should be included, and this list doesn't follow the structure of the previously-featured (English club) lists, where I'm well acquainted with what sources exist. It's much better sourced than it was when first reviewed, but even today on my third (fourth?) visit I'm still finding unsourced tables (see above). MoS is fine, structure's adequate. Still bothers me that for a club the size of Barcelona there's apparently no accessible book source for statistical stuff. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry there isn't a book on the subject, but I can't find any. I'll be happy to use it if it exists. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Conditional Weak support You've had two fantastic reviewers above me, so I'll defer to their judgement on the prose. I have a pretty minor concern over whether the list is complete, but I am happy that the information is accurate, reliably sourced, well structured and appropriately illustrated. --WFC-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak support based on Struway's final comments. I do differ with Stru on one point though: I don't think the lack of consensus on football lists in general should be held against this one. Especially given that Sandman has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to try and get consensus over a period of months. --WFC-- 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn't hold lack of consensus against the list. I cited lack of consensus about what should be included, which meant I didn't know what I should be looking for, as one reason why it would take too long to give it a thorough review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this kind of article should only be applied to the greatest 10 or so greatest clubs in the world in any given sport. Barcelona is indeed one of them, this could be a good "bet". I vote for promotion. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Congratulations for the good job done. I had a look and the article seems properly structured and cited.--Jordiferrer (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and copyedits, much appreciated. Looks like I'll soon be done with this process, only one list left :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


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