Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Athletic Bilbao in European football/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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Athletic Bilbao in European football

Featured list candidates/Athletic Bilbao in European football/archive1

Nominator(s): Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a high-quality article. There are many citations for the information and many different aspects to the statistics presented, and I feel the format is easy to interpret, follows normal conventions and is pleasing on the eye. The prose is informative but fairly succinct, with a lot of scope to add further referenced detail from individual seasons if deemed necessary.

On a personal level I enjoyed creating this article, as this is my favourite team and this type of information was totally lacking from Wikipedia despite it being a fairly high-profile club. Therefore I had to source virtually all the information myself (luckily, aided by a few high-quality reliable online data sources as well as many relevant news articles). I welcome all constructive criticism which would help me improve this article and the many others I have created or contributed significantly to since joining the project in 2016; I am proud of the work I have contributed but am aware it can be even better with the guidance of experienced reviewers. Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate thing that jumps out is that the article definitely needs more than a 2-sentence lead..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I deal with that (and anything else) now, or wait for a certain time and try to fix lots at once? Not sure on the correct order. Thanks Crowsus (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

Agree with ChrisTheDude lead should be longer.
There should be more refs to multiple paragraphs. The first paragraph (The Magyars and the Babes) – zero refs in 1st paragraph, only 2 in the 2nd (& at the very end).
Under "most appearances" and "top goalscorers", use En dashes per MOS:DASH
All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (or see MOS:DTAB)
"managerial statistics" table:
- Refs need own column
- Table should be sortable
- Present doesn't need to be italicized
"UEFA annual ranking" table:
- Center the whole table
- Unsort ref column
"Results by season" table:
- Refs should have own column.
- The whole table could be sortable
- Center "Round" column

These are some things I noticed that should hopefully give you a good start. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for comments and advice. I think I have addressed most of it (the tables definitely look better with a ref column) apart from the All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (or see MOS:DTAB), I really don't know where to start with that or how much work it would involve, obviously I have looked at the guidance pages but it confused me more, very technical. I have been working on trial and error methods when creating tables and don't use any editing aids etc, not sure how common that is. I have just about managed to get the ones in this article to a reasonable level, not sure I can bear completely reorganising columns and stuff so if it's complex or a massive job then it might be a dealbreaker if it's a must for FA status. But maybe it's more straightforward than that? Crowsus (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus The coding in MOS:DTAB basically shows the more traditional way of making tables, putting everything in one line. I personally hate this method and prefer every column have their own line. Basically, what it says is you put ! scope="col" under every column before you start the table. In terms of scope rows, you usually put these under items in columns that are most specific to that specific row. For example, for the "managerial statistics" table, you would put ! scope="row" before every name in every row. I use a find and replace tool in Google Chrome to make things easier so I don't have to do it manually. Making scope rows will cause the items in the box to be bolded and centered. If you don't want this, put "plainrowheaders" after "wikitable sortable". Also, some people don't want the scoped columns shaded so you use a "|" and not a "!". If you want I can do a table for you to show how it's done. Hope this helped. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Another comment, I think the player records should be in tables as well. Having them not in tables looks weird to me. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, and I'll give it a try but might get back to you pleading if it's a complete failure/bafflement. And will also definitely do the players in tables, as you can tell I'm not not a big fan of using them but once it goes beyond a few names with bullet points it starts to look daft, as you have pointed out. Should have sorted that before any of this FL stuff as that was obviously something that would need addressed if it was going to be beyond me and a couple of other fans of the club looking at the article. Crowsus (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been a good idea to bring it to peer review first but it's no big deal. Like I said, if you want me to do one table as an example or every table for you it's no big deal because I totally don't mind. If you have any comments or questions just ask. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV I've attempted to do the scope rows and columns, not a disaster but some look better than others and some have probably been added better than others! Could you take a look at some point? Crowsus (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional annoyance: Sorry, do you think I should add more scorers to make it up to 10? It does look a bit lopsided alongside the appearances, but from what I remember it'd be getting down to four goals or something, hardly a spectacular total. Crowsus (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus You did great. There were a couple minor things I fixed myself like ref cols are unsorted. I also moved a couple scope rows from the number col to the name col. And I agree, I would increase it to 10. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning towards oppose – You've put together a good account of Athletic's European history, but at present this is nowhere near featured standard if I'm judging solely on the criteria. The way you have arranged the prose makes me question why it couldn't just be an article. A wise thing to do would be taking a look at similar FLs, like Malmö FF in European football or Rosenborg BK in European football. These encompass the achievements of both clubs adequately. Some other things to ponder:

What do and signify in the overall stats table?
BDFUTBOL.com → BDFutbol
I just had a quick scan at the referencing and found missing info on ref 8, needs author's name.
As BeatlesLad points out scope cols and rows are needed, per MOS:DTT. For instance they are missing on most appearances. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and for the comments. I have attempted to address the small ones, although I think the scope rows have all been done? I just didn't make it all bold as in thought it looked better without. But maybe I haven't done it fully, not something I've had to include before.

I realise this is ideal just me showing my naivety and ignorance, but I infer that the prose I have added is too much for a good list? I mean, it would be pointless to have an article on the subject without the statistics, can't both aspects be accommodated here but it still be thought of as a list? All I really have is a short section about the unusual events of one season which are just paraphrased from the sources cited, with the rest just the pertinent stats expressed in sentences for a bit of context. It seems to be caught between the two categories; if I tried to present it to as a good article, I think reviewers would instantly say it's a list with text. Seems confusing, I suppose that's what happens when I invite others to look at my stuff, they are (justifiably) going to tell me it's wonky. Crowsus (talk)

@Crowsus: added prose is fine, my concern is more to do with structuring, style and from the briefest of glimpses, sourcing. If you have a look at the featured lists I'm comparing this to, you will get an idea of what needs to be done for it to meet the criteria. At present it's a long way off because the structure is all over the place and I'm finding it a bit difficult to navigate. I think European records and statistics are fine, but could it not be accommodated into List of Athletic Bilbao records and statistics? Other things to consider: per WP:LEAD, citations are not required in the intro unless they are quotes because the lead serves as a summary. The lead should also be engaging and sufficiently summarises the list; as it stands it's not ticking the boxes for me. Again have a look at Malmö FF or Rosenborg's pages, or even FC Porto in international football competitions to get some ideas on how to beef up the lead. I'm not saying you need to organise the lists as per, but it should be logical. Unfortunately I'm not involved in reviewing lists and articles as much as I'd like to these days, I go through bouts and any time I have is spent on content editing, so I apologise for not providing you with clear-cut feedback. I think this could easily meet FL standard within a week, but it needs another pair of eyes to look over the text, for you and someone else to check the sourcing. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wee update, haven't been able to do much to this but thank you for further input, I'm going to go down the route of adding more prose in a chronological fashion in the hope of applying for GA status in the future. That would mean it had a better flow (I agree its disjointed) and I could just do the records as bullet points rather than trying to boost the text by forcing them into paragraphs which don't relate to adjacent ones very well. I like the style of the Porto article and its split tables for each decade so I might well go for that (if peers also like it), although Porto have a much more successfull and consistent history than Athletic so there's more to go in! I think I have a good start with the Magyars section, will just have to make sure I don't over-elaborate on recent seasons which are more familar to me. Don't know if I need to withdraw formally from this process but as stated above I'm going to go for GA in the future rather than push for FL. Please be assured that advice given was valued and has been taken on board so I hope nobody feels that their time has been wasted looking at a substandard candidate. Cheers. Crowsus (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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