Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Manchester City F.C. seasons


 * 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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

Manchester City F.C. seasons
This list was the subject of a failed nomination last year. Since then, a number of similar lists have become featured, and thanks to a peer review it should now be of the same standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * previous nom

Support


 * Support Looks very good now. Everything I suggested has either been addressed or a good argument made against it. The only thing I woul suggest is trying to narrow the list, but it's not an objectionable comment. Peanut4 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good list! Some small minor issues that are already mentioned above, but after these are solved I approve the nomination. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One last question, we hope. Your note A doesn't mention including goals scored in minor competitions (Anglo-Scottish-Italian-Texaco whatever your lot were in) whereas the table does mention the rounds reached in same. Are these goals really excluded, or have the minor competitions just been omitted from the note? Struway2 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the note is correct, but I am away from my books over the Easter weekend. Perhaps they should be included for consistency. I'll check it out in full when I next have my books with me. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support assuming you sort out the above. The list follows the general pattern of other featured lists of this type; the nominator adequately justifies those differences of approach which do exist. It satisfies the timeline criterion, is well-referenced and annotated, stable and complete, and has an appropriate free-use image. Well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to address the issue people are having with the references, previously the footnotes and references were a mixed jumble, and they should be separated, see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. It also allows the footnotes to be referenced, previously they couldn't be. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't reference [4] be a footnote? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I replaced a hyphen with an en dash but beyond that, nothing else to moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.