Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year

List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year
Nominating this list. It's been through Peer Review, which stimulated some useful feedback. I'd welcome comment and constructive criticism. --Dweller 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Any more? --Dweller 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for these comments (and your fix, TRM). I thought about the sortability issue - it does no harm to leave it and I figured someone may be interested in grouping the nationalities. The country names is another issue I considered... I left it because the name shows up when you hover the cursor over the flag, and besides, they're all "home countries" to-date, anyway. --Dweller 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It's accurate, it's informative, it's sourced, it's useful, it complies with the MOS —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support with the minor disclosure that I have made a few edits to the article (19), but nowhere near the main contributor. Complies with WP:WIAFL so no objections following the peer review.  The Rambling Man 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reference following "the 1972 winner, although Joe Royle went on to manage arch-rivals Ipswich Town." gives the soccerbase page for Dave Stringer. Needs changing to Joe Royle. Mattythewhite 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, I blew it. It's fixed now I hope.  (1) Good citation research.  (2) Hope it's okay now.  The Rambling Man 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speed there. Another minor thing; I think the flags in the "Nationality" column should be changed to give the name of the nation alongside the flag. This will help with the sortability and for user's who don't know what the nation is. Also, the players on the list need the sortname template so thay can be sorted by surname. Mattythewhite 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really the place to discuss it, but I think that would make the list very messy - especially since all but one are England, Scotland or Wales. Maybe a key at the bottom? Realistically, anyone using this list is likely to know already, anyway —  iride  scent  22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not particularly a need for that list to be sortbale then, doesn't really serve any puropse in that function. Mattythewhite 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can help with the sort name stuff if required... The Rambling Man 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Comments dealt with. Good work. Mattythewhite 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - fulfils criteria. Just had a go at tweaking the prose a bit better but I note this isn't a criterion as such. Nevermind. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Dweller 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment sorting needs sorting. The sortname template should be used. The flagicons should use ENG, SCO etc instead of the current images. Not only does this show the name, it should sort properly as well! Woodym555 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll fix it when I can. --Dweller 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Too late... The Rambling Man 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks man. --Dweller 12:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem dude. The Rambling Man 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that having one paragraph sections is uneccessary but i don't see a way around it, so i can't oppose because of that! The "Summary" tables could be merged using colspan but that is optional. Otherwise, it is a good list that meets all the criteria. Woodym555 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Dweller 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Any more? --Dweller 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support The article meets the criteria so I'll support. However, I think you should link each playing position in the list once or link all positions. Dave101 →talk  09:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the sortable table, all need to be linked since you can't rely on the first instance... Oh, and some of the ref's need full stops...!! The Rambling Man 10:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ All wikilinked. And all full stops included now, with exception of one where it didn't seem right. --Dweller 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support looks okay as far as I can tell, just a few things could be fixed:
 * I think the "significance" section should be merged into the lead text. It sounds like unnecessary touting as a section.
 * Not sure what it's touting, but it sounds a sensible idea to merge it. --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that the section sounded to me as if written to justify the list when separated like that, and that was uncalled for and annoying.
 * No need whatsoever to italicize the notes (forgot to remove it when I did some adjustments to the table).
 * Fair enough. I'll deal with this. --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add double brackets so the ISO format publishing dates display properly.
 * Not sure what this means, but I'm happy to comply and will look into it. If someone sees this and fixes it for while I'm working it out, that'd be great, as I'll see the diff and know what to do in future. --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the list and also Template:Cite_web, it seems that the access dates are correctly wikilinked and the publication dates need not be wikilinked. --Dweller 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside (not necessary to implement, just an idea. The "second award" bit could be transferred from the notes to a symbol after the player's name (since we can't use a color; that's what is used in the hockey awards list, and I think it's a nifty idea).
 * As there space for a notes column, stating something longhand is going to make the list more user-friendly than adding another legend element. I'll decline on this... (and note that you weren't pushing hard for it anyway) --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Circeus 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the feedback... and the support. --Dweller 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * re: cite template/ ISO dates, I meant that leaving the publication (not the consultation dates, which must be in that format) date as e.g. 2006-12-06 instead of 2006-12-06 (which gives 2006-12-06) was less than ideal. Full conversion was not really necessary (though it doesn't make much of a difference).
 * re: second award, I think that the notes are not very prominent, whereas that particular bit of information is much more relevant, hence my suggestion to make it more visible (removes the need to have notes in two formats and makes it clearer there are double awardees—though they could also be mentioned in the prose ). Circeus 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)