Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records


 * 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 User:The Rambling Man 15:45, 10 September 2008.

List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records
previous FLC (22:08, 28 February 2008)

I feel that this list meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list, after a peer review and addressing the issues from the previous nomination. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think you mean Liverpool Football Club as the publisher, not plain Liverpool, which would imply that the city is the publisher of the websites.
 * Done


 * What makes the following sites reliable:
 * http://www.lfchistory.net/index.asp
 * This is the most reliable site for Liverpool F.C. info, the content is updated regularly and all content is checked by the official Liverpool F.C. historian Eric Doig, which I think makes the site very reliable.
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does http://www.lfchistory.net/aboutus_articles_view.asp?article_Id=112 cover the above?
 * Works enough for me to leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, hows that work? I think we're in borderline territory, and I'd rather other reviewers be able to see and decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this page would account for the website's reliability. Plenty of sources named there. – PeeJay 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 5 and 9, the Liverpool All-Time Greats book, needs to list the author and date of publication as well as page numbers. It also appears that the ISBN is not correct according to Google Books and World Cat.
 * Changed the book to a better book


 * Current ref 31 needs page numbers
 * Done
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adressed all your comments. Thanks NapHit (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Support It's great to finally be able to support this nomination, well done! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.