Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Southport F.C. seasons/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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC).

List of Southport F.C. seasons

 * Nominator(s): Narom (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, i've put a lot of hard work into it and I hope it's reached the threshold to be considered for it. However I know its not perfect and happy to do more work to get it there if needs be. Narom (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hope this helps. The biggest issues, I think, are the total lack of sourcing in the lead (the claim to have been the first team to have a sponsored name definitely needs a citation) and the missing top goalscorers for over half the Football League seasons (if the book lists them from 1921 to 1949 I find it implausible that it doesn't list the rest......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, the entire lead is unreferenced, that certainly needs addressing done
 * "Southport Football Club is an English association football club......and currently play in the Conference National" - club referred to as singular and plural in the same sentence done
 * "after suffering a concession of heavy defeats" - I think you mean a "succession", not "concession" done
 * "In 1921, all first teams (league was a mixture of first and reserve teams)...." - I don't like the bracketed section there, could you try and work it into more flowing prose? Better i think?
 * I would bin the "statistics" section, I really don't think it adds anything. No other "List of X F.C. seasons" article has anything like that I must have copied it from another list, not something i would have done off my own back, i can remove it
 * Why are the FA Cup stats for the first few seasons (assuming that's what they are) in the "other competitions" column? Just a formatting error.
 * How can you be sure that the players shown as having said a new goalscoring record did so when there are loads of seasons for which the info is not known? For example, how do you know that Billy Glover's 28 goals in 1921-22 was a record?  Someone could have scored 29 the season before.......... Good point.
 * Are the top goalscorer details for the last 29 Football League seasons really not known? You list Braham's book as the source for every FL season, does the book really only detail the top goalscorer up to 1949?They are known, i've just got to invididually count the goals for each player as there isn't a list.
 * Unlike the League, the FA Cup did take place in 1945-46 and Southport were in it, that is missing from the table
 * For the 1977-78 season, you use the pink for relegated, but they weren't relegated, they were voted out I'll think of something.
 * You don't specify which division of the NPL the club was in between 1979 and 1993It was only one division when southport were in it.
 * That's not correct, it had two divisions from 1987..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware of that, thanks. Narom (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note G - "outbreak" is one word, not two Done
 * Note I - in present tense, all other notes are in past tense Done
 * Note K - "quarter-finals" should have a hyphen and no capital letters Done
 * Note L - surely the Fourth Division was below the Third, not alongside it? Done, just bad wording.
 * Note N - "changed named"? Possibly have another note?
 * Note Q - "The 2000–01 edition of the Football League Trophy saw 8 Football Conference sides" - shouldn't that be 2001-02? Done
 * Note R - stray "s" on the end of Football Conference Done
 * Note U - "kicked out" is a very slangy expression to use in an encyclopedia Done
 * Also, for that season, the stats are completely wrong compared to FCHD Done, just too much crtl-v
 * General refs - not accessed since 2010 - really? Good point.
 * Per WP:ACCESS, colour should not be used to signify something without the use of a symbol as well for those who can't see the colours Done
 * Thanks, certainly helps having a fresh eye over it. I'll dig the book out tomorrow and make a crack on it. You're certainly right about the 45 fa cup, I must have just missed it. Narom (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How's it looking now? Obviously still some things to work on. Narom (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I see numerous issues with the list that cause it not to meet the FL criteria.
 * None of the bolding in the lead for the team names is necessary, and it goes against MOS:BOLD.
 * In a few places in the lead, spaces should be removed between references and punctuation.
 * The two hyphens around Southport Vulcan should be en dashes per the Manual of Style, or unspaced em dashes if you prefer.
 * "In 1919, the club dropped Vulcan from their name and were now known strictly as Southport and have been ever since." This isn't the best bit of writing I've seen at FLC, and it could stand to be re-written.
 * The photo in the lead could use alt text.
 * Statistics: Why are there equal signs for half of these items?
 * And why is there a period after "Group A" in the last item here? Truth be told, I don't think this section adds much to the list. People can look at the division column of the table if they want to know how many seasons Southport spent in a league.
 * Bolding in tables has long been discouraged at FLC. I can understand that the scopes force bolding in one of the columns, but the bolding in the division and top scorer columns needs to go. You can use bolding for emphasis, if you like.
 * All tables items with colors require matching symbols per WP:ACCESS, not just the promotions, relegations, and top scorers. The colored winners and runners-up will need symbols as well.
 * Second word of the Average Attendance column should be decapitalized.
 * The lack of references for the early seasons is glaring. Is this material all covered by the general references?
 * In the general references, a link to the Statto main page doesn't do anything to help the reader verify the material in this article. A link to a team-specific page would be more helpful here.
 * No page numbers for ref 10 is an obvious weakness in the referencing. Without a page number, this isn't as verifiable as it should be. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


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