Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season/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 21:50, 31 October 2009.

List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season

 * Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have based this list on similar Featured lists, such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. Players of the Year, and believe it meets the criteria. All feedback appreciated. WFCforLife (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Why are the seasons written in a weird 19xx-19yy format, which is never used in football reporting?
 * Fixed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should "End of Season Awards Dinner" really have all those capital letters?
 * Edited to reflect source. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for capital M on Mechanism in heading
 * Fixed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the lines in the table have no refs - what is sourcing these winners?
 * Reference 2 in the column sources all of the winners except for Tommy Smith in 2009. I've referenced all those in the Hall of Fame and with international caps, plus a couple of others where there is reason to do so, for instance the 1984 F.A. Cup final and those who have made international appearances for youth, B and C teams. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "International appearances correct as of 04 October 2009." - just write 4 October, not 04
 * FixedWFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On my screen the photo of Tommy Mooney has pushed the "by nationality" table down and left a huge whitespace on the left
 * I noticed that while I was fixing the other issues. The best alternative will be to find a third picture, and have one picture next to each of the two tables. I'll dig for a free one and update when I've done it. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. WFCforLife (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note 10: "Rankin is the first player to win the award twice. " - this is surely obvious from the table and doesn't need restating in the notes
 * Note 17: "Rostron became the first player to win the award in consecutive seasons." - as above
 * Note 25: "Coton is the only player to have won the award for a third time. " - and again
 * Note 33: "Chamberlain is currently goalkeeping coach at the club." - is this really relevant?
 * Note 34: ".....He has also played in a first class cricket match, where he bowled out England batsman Graeme Fowler." - of no relevance whatsoever to this list, no reason for this trivia factoid to be here
 * Note 41: "....His goalkeeping coach at Manchester United was former winner Tony Coton." - not really relevant, again this is just trivia
 * All fixed except for Chamberlain, who follows the precident set for Norwich. I'm happy to remove it if the consensus is that I should do so. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the Chamberlain footnote. When I separated the footnotes and references it did indeed seem out of place compared to the other notes. WFCforLife (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've now added a free image of Ben Foster, and reorganised the tables. I'm happy to remove the Chamberlain footnote if you feel it is highly irrelevant, or there are further objections. My rationale is that being the current goalkeeping coach at a club with a history of giving the award to goalkeepers is of sufficient relevance. WFCforLife (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alt text could do with a bit of work - players' names should not be mentioned, and you should not include wording such as "he is wearing Watford's goalkeeping kit". I would suggest that the three alts should be something like "A man wearing a yellow football shirt and shorts, standing on the playing pitch", "A man in a jacket and tie outside a football stadium", and "A man in a grey football shirt and goalkeeping gloves standing in front of a goal", or similar -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, why are the footnotes in such tiny text? I can hardly read them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text is done. As for the footnotes, is the current format better? I'm not sure if this is personal preference or a valid point, but I felt they didn't look right at 100% font size. WFCforLife (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now. Text smaller than 100% size is discouraged as it causes accessibility issues, being very hard for some readers with less than perfect vision to read.  I am now happy to support providing that you fix the two refs on the last line of the table, which should be in  numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. WFCforLife (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume I've missed it, but where's the cite for each of the winners? I can't see it. One of the Watford books I have lists the top 3 from the first award through to 2001, and I imagine one could find the positioning for later awards online. I don't know whether that would be an interesting addition to the list or whether it would mean it lost its focus. Opinions invited. Otherwise, all seems good. Nice work! HornetMike (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its at the top of the column labelled notes. The more I think about it the more I think about moving it somewhere more prominent, but I'm not sure where to put it. The only thing I'm certain of is that this wasn't the right way to do reference them. As for the top three, I don't know whether it's an interesting addition or needless detail, but for the majority of the awards I've seen covered online there's no mention of second and third. Example. There could possibly be a mention on the likes of BSaD or GloryHorns, but would they count as reliable sources? WFCforLife (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Took a while to reach a point where I have no more comments, but we're there now. I'm confident that the list meets FL standards now.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from --  SRE.K.A.L. 24 [c]
 * Could merge the Voting mechanism section with the lead. This is because the lead seems small in size, as it only has around 1000 bytes.
 * Done. WFCforLife (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix all fixable redirects. User:Splarka/dabfinder.js can find all the redirects and dabs in the article.
 * I've fixed the links which I believe could be considered ambiguous or genuinely problematic. I've left several redirects as redirects, such as Manchester United, per WP:NOTBROKEN. WFCforLife (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are all the entries in the Notes column in bold text?
 * Fixed. WFCforLife (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could mention Heiðar Helguson is the only one no born in the Commonwealth. If you think it's too trivial, then don't bother.
 * I think he may actually be the only one born outside the United Kingdom, as the Jamaican players are both U.K. born. Given some of the footnotes I've removed during the FAC (including "first non-English player" and "first non-UK player") it would probably be inconsistent to add this one. WFCforLife (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understandable. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

--  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I'll support once all issues are resolved. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One small thing, I was just wondering if you had an opinion on the issue with the edit tab raised by Giants2008? WFCforLife (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty funny how one edit tab can change the article a bit. I like it the way it is, so props to your thinking. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was glancing though this discussion to check that I've addressed everyone's concerns, and was just wondering if you felt there were any outstanding issues? I believe I've responded to HornetMike's comments, but just thought I'd see if you had any specific concerns. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided.  Good raise  19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources: No concerns about the sources (added a few publishers while I was checking them).  Good raise  04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from  Good raise  04:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When I clicked on [A], I expected an explanation as to what "Level" meant.
 * The first [B] doesn't lead to the correct note.
 * The notes should be ordered in number of appearance. (Meaning [D] shouldn't appear before [C].)

I'll take them in order:
 * As a starting point, the unedited footnote is used in other featured lists, for instance here, here and here. I've amended it in a way that should hopefully help.
 * I'm not sure if I accidentally fixed it, but it seems fine to me. WFCforLife (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved.

WFCforLife (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The footnote could be used in a thousand featured lists, that wouldn't make me the least bit more likely to accept it. As for your change, you've simply gone into more detail, explaining what the individual levels are. The link provided at the end of the footnote does that just fine. What I'd like to see is a preceding statement that explains what these levels are in general, because that's the question a reader who is unfamiliar with English football (like me) will ask themself. Anyways, I've tried to do it myself.  Good raise  13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your edit is an improvement, as it has removed the needless waffle that was already there. I'm a bit unsure as to whether you're still requesting a preceeding statement, and if so why my previous addition wouldn't suffice. You seem to be asking for an explanation of what the levels represent, and I feel that I gave an exhaustive explanation. WFCforLife (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The original footnote left me confused after the first reading. Since we seem to agree on the current version, I have nothing left that would keep me from supporting.  Good raise  11:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


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