Wikipedia:Peer review/List of FA Cup winners/archive1

List of FA Cup winners

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to FL standard. But please let me know of any tweaks I may still need to make.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

--Jameboy (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * I think it would be reasonable to link to all of the final articles as well as the season articles, particularly as you have a list of finals. Could you link each scoreline to the corresponding cup final article perhaps? There may be another way to do it, by adding an extra column say, but this would seem the most efficient.
 * "Until 1999 a draw in the final would result in the match being replayed, since that date the final has always been decided on the day." -- I think the middle of the sentence should be "replayed; since then" or "replayed, but since then". Also I would add something on the end like "...with extra-time and penalties if necessary" to help explain that in some cases that was what was required to settle it on the day.
 * Can we distinguish the finals that went to extra-time or were decided in extra-time? I assume all the finals requiring a replay did (though I may well be wrong), but those decided in extra-time could also be marked out.

I don't have much to say, and the one thing I was going to say, Jameboy already has. So I will echo his first bullet point. My suggestion would be to link the score, as in his suggestion, or perhaps add a second link underneath the season link, to say "Final details" or something similar. I think the first option would look neater. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from


 * Cheers for the comments gents, I'm back after a little unscheduled Wikibreak over the weekend, so I will get onto them later today.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * I definitely think the list should be sortable, seeing as this is part of the criteria of Feature lists now
 * I'll get on to that
 * I think you might need to include references for the matches, this si what I did for the European Cup winners lists anyway, so it would be advisable
 * Each column has a ref at the top which covers the entire column, isn't that sufficient? I think it would look a bit silly to have the same numbered reference repeated 127 times........
 * A key would make things a little clearer instead of the information being listed as it is now
 * Other than the asterisk for extra time, what else is there to cover with a key.....?
 * The bold for double winners and italics for teams from outside the top division NapHit (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure about everything being centrally aligned, it does look nice, but I thought only figures were centrally aligned
 * Again, I'll get on to that....

Hope this helps NapHit (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)