Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year/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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010.

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

 * Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the requirements to warrant being a Featured List. I put a considerable amount of time into the article to ensure it is of a professional standard and meets all specified criteria. I will happily respond to queries or suggestions and add anything that is required for the article to attain Featured List status. Thankyou for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with the conversation below being completed. Excellent, thorough, and clear. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments The general layout is awesome. A few quick notes:
 * David Norris and Paul McGregor are sent to disambiguation pages. I can't figure out how to fix it. See "disambig links" in the toolbar
 * Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having connection issues with the "external links" in the toolbar. None of them are showing "dead" though.
 * I have noticed that some of the links from "Argyle Review" take a while to load. I'm not sure why, but they definitely exist. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text (from what I understand) seems off. Adjust them to describe what you see.
 * You cannot tell that Paul Mariner is "kneeling" from what the image displays
 * You cannot tell that Johnny Newman is "standing infront of a building" from what the image displays
 * Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does "Level" in note 1 need to be capitalized?
 * Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the publishers in the references need to be italicized when they aren't works? Cptnono (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I went through it one more time and noticed a couple minor things. I expect I will be supporting this after your response or modifications.
 * Manual of Style - Consider adjusting "The current holder of the award is..." just in case you are not editing when the '10 award is given. It will also be a notification to anyone to anyone reading it at that time to update it. "In 2009..." should work (the reader should assume it is current there). The "current" in the manager section might need to be changed as well.
 * Do you need to link to associated football twice in the lead? I think that "player over the course of the football season." would work fine.
 * Consider wikilinking "pitch" for audiences not familiar with the term.
 * The "Pyramid Suite" means nothing to readers not familiar with the facility. Maybe try wikilinking Pyramid Suite or adding in that it is the hospitality suite.
 * Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good, they've all been corrected. I especially like the wikilink suggestion for the Pyramid Suite, so it'll leave the reader in no doubt as to what it is.
 * Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment This article should be named Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year, since it is the main article about the award, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll change it if necessary. I followed the lead of similar articles regarding Ipswich Town and Norwich City.


 * I assume they would need to be altered also? Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I moved both of those. You can move this one when you get the chance; I'll take care of fixing links and such. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment – What makes Argyle Review and Greens on Screen reliable sources? I see from the Plymouth Argyle page here that the sites are databases. Who runs them, and are they considered accurate? This is important since they are the primary sources for the table.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bummer. It looks great to me and I trust it from what I have seen but it is not a published writer with an editorial staff vetting it.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are indeed databases maintained by supporters. The first, Greens on Screen, has been run by a man called Steve for over 11 years, which makes it older than the club's official website, and Wikipedia for that matter! In his words, it is an amateur website run as a hobby to bring supporters closer to their team. It is highly respected amongst our fanbase and I can't think of any better to be honest. Its only failing, if you can call it that, is that it isn't "officially" linked to the club.


 * The second runs along a similar theme, and I included sources to that one because it states when they won the award in their notable moments section. If the club's official website had a vast array of information on the past then I would use that instead, but it doesn't and I have come to rely on Greens on Screen for a number of years. I have a great deal of respect for Steve and all the work he has done there for no financial gain. If the statistics were false then the website would've been gone a long time ago.


 * I could link some players to Soccerbase, but it doesn't include them all as yet. Maybe that will change in the future. The official website does have small profiles on certain players. If I go through that and switch a few of the links around that would be okay? There is no guarantee all 45 players will have a profile on there, but I'll do my best. I understand your concerns, reliability is paramount. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * General note on establishing reliability: To determine the reliability 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. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not going to pretend I know all of the in's and out's of it, but I appreciate the help from you guys. I have found three areas so far. The first is on the main page of the site, a link at the top titled "About GoS". The second is shown here, on the main page of the database to the top left; "GoS's data has been verified using original newspaper reports to ensure a very high degree of accuracy". The third is the best I think. When Saturday Comes, a national football magazine which was established in 1986. Greens on Screen has featured on it many times, listed among "some of the very best sites".


 * "Greens On Screen (Plymouth Argyle) Everything an independent team website should be – packed with photos, video clips, stats, clever graphs and concise match reports. “An ama­teur website aiming to add, not compete,” it says modestly. If only every team had one." - When Saturday Comes, January 2005.


 * I hope that helps. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another link; Neil Brown, a trusted source among WikiProject Football members, has Greens on Screen listed in its "links" section. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To offer a comment that isn't reference-related, a couple of unneeded commas after Paul Mariner and "1980s goalscoring icon" should be removed. If an uninvolved editor has any thoughts on the reliability of these sources, it would be helpful, for both myself and the nominator.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was leaning towards Argyle Review being OK. It has received a positive write up as shown above, has passed some cross checking, and appears to have a focus on reliability. Unfortunately, it has been down for the last couple of days which brings up eve more concern. Anyone know if it is only a temporarily problem?Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Giants2008, you were right, looking back there was too many commas, so I've rearranged the citations and reduced the number of them. Cptnono, I believe you have your wires crossed, the one which has received praise is Greens on Screen. I only included links to Argyle Review because it stated on the players profile that they won the award. As you said its been down for a week or so, and I noticed it hadn't been updated for a few weeks before that. I'm not sure what happened, but it could be any number of things. The most likely is that the renewal for domain hosting was coming up and the guy who runs it decided it wasn't worth the bother because its always been in the shadow of Greens on Screen, but its still a shame to see it go. Having dead links isn't good so I'm having a look now to see which can be replaced. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this list is close and feel that a few days to get that sourcing issue straight would be more beneficial than closing and reopening the review. Feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page if you get stuck on some and need a hand.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a few hours to spare this morning so I've gone through the list and replaced the broken references with fully functional ones and I've added three historical books about the club, dating back to when it became professional in 1903. If you have any suggestions then let me know. I took out the FIFA links because they only cover appearances made in their competitions, so no friendlies, contintental qualifiers, etc, but I could put them back alongside what I replaced them with to add a bit more verifiability. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. In addition, there were concerns about reliability that, though they seem to be mostly addressed, might be fully resolved outside FLC. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.