Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup/archive1

List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup

 * 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 May 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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Thinking of putting this up for FL, wondered what else I might need to do.........?

Does the word "football" need to be in the article title....?

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any chance the "Season" column can be extended a bit so it doesn't go onto two lines? On IE browser, at 1152 x 864, it goes over two lines. D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've "forced" the column widths, how does it look now.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a few changes to the table widths. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I think some of the text needs more references, particularly the first and third pars and the last line of the second par. I would have said some of that would be easy to steal from FA Cup, but unfortunately that is one of the worst referenced articles on here. However, I digress...
 * If you're going to take this to FLC, I'd suggest creating articles, even if only stubs, for the redlinked FA Cup seasons.
 * Is there any reference available to say why and when Scottish clubs could no longer enter - I presume those in the SFA can't?
 * I'd suggest adding football to the title, but I'd gauge wider opinion on that one.
 * Just a final minor one. Do you think it should be categorised with "History of English football" as well as Scottish? After all, it is an English competition. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article already states when and why Scottish clubs (other than Gretna) stopped entering, complete with a reference to a BBC article, so I think that one's aleady covered. I'll get on to the others ASAP..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * You may want to reconsider the bolded lead sentence in light of recent discussions.
 * I'd leave the redlinked seasons as they are. Redlinks attract creators of articles. A stub like FA Cup 1996-97 adds very little to the encyclopedia but makes the potential article-creator think that season's article has already been done. Don't know if you've been following the new criteria debates, but redlinks and stubs get a mention, in WT:Featured list criteria and throughout that talk page.
 * Do you intend to make it sortable? If not, there's massive overlinking (as I'm sure you know).
 * I'd make the section heading Performance of ... (singular rather than plural)
 * and would include football in the article title.
 * Could you find a more obviously reliable source for it being the world's oldest competition beginning in 1871 than an agency piece in an Australian newspaper?
 * Why did Queens Park keep entering if they were only going to withdraw? and if money was a problem, why did they continue in the English Cup once there was a Scottish one?
 * Cheers for your comments, I'll address them shortly, although I have found no source which indicates why QP apparently entered the draw five times only to then pull out........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not much else to moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Not overly keen on the columns being centrally aligned, except for the season and the ref.
 * Not sure about the mix of "Round 3" and "3rd qualifying round".
 * Blackburn Rovers is overlinked.
 * I would expand the lead image size. I think, if I remember, you can go up to 300px for the lead image per WP:MOS.
 * Home Counties doesn't need the C to be capitalised.
 * Cheers for the comments, all addressed except the column alignments, which I'll do later. I took the image about to what appeared to be the maximum size at which the quality looked OK..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)