Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of AFC Wimbledon seasons/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Hahc21 10:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of AFC Wimbledon seasons

edit

List of AFC Wimbledon seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jodie25 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it forms a comprehensive and complete account of all AFC Wimbledon seasons to date Jodie25 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The lead image could use alt text.
  • Table: Bold items are discouraged in tables per MOS:BOLD. If you want to emphasize the division changes, I recommend italics as an MOS-friendly substitute.
  • Note 2: Reference 69 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark.
  • In the first three references, the publishers should be italicized since they are all newspapers. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All cells with colors should have matching symbols per WP:ACCESS.
    • I was asked on my talk page for more clarification on this point. Simply put, when there are colored items in a table, matching symbols should be added to each item that has a particular color. You can use number symbols, daggers, double daggers, or several other symbols; just make sure each one is attached to a certain color. From the current pool of FLCs, List of Detroit Red Wings seasons is a good example of what needs to be done. There's a key explaining each of the colors and symbols, with symbols in the list where required. I hope this helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments Harrias talk
  • In the second paragraph, the first three sentences begin "AFC Wimbledon was...", "AFC Wimbledon's average...", and "AFC Wimbledon has..." Try to vary this a little more, to stop the paragraph sounding like a string of bullet points  Done.
  • "..ensuring that they would be the first.." Don't like the use of "would be", "were" works better  Done.
  • The # and * for cup winners and cup runners-up isn't needed. While Giants in right that coloured items need matching symbols, in these cases, the matching symbols are "W" and "RU". And to be honest, given that the cell explicitly states "Champions" or "Promoted via Play-Offs", I don't think the symbols are needed there either: the colour is not conveying any information not included in the table anyway, so a screen-reader user would still have the information without the colour, and without the need for a symbol. That said, I would tend to keep it in the "Pos" column, but remove it from the Cups, where is really is extremely superfluous. Done.
  • I don't like the use of the flags in the table. MOS:FLAG suggests that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In this case, I don't think the nationality of the player is at all relevant to the overall list. Similarly, is a flag does have to be used, the section on "Accompany flags with country names" is relevant, and should be adhered to. Done.
  • Why are the attendances referenced in their cell, while everything else is referenced in the "References" column. I would suggest consistency, and place all the refs in the "References" column. Done.
  • Ref #1 needs more details: Publication date, author, and it is actually from The Observer, not The Guardian. Done.
  • Ref #2 similarly needs Publication date and author. Done.
  • Looking through the rest of the references, many of them need to be completed to provide full details.  Done.Harrias talk 09:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a justifiably reason for the table not to be sortable? Almost all other recent examples of FL "List of XXX seasons" for football teams are sortable, and while it would take a fair amount of technical fiddling, I can't really see why this list wouldn't be? Harrias talk 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Has User:Jodie25 addressed the above comments? If so, please make a note accordingly, and then I may be tempted to make a review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of comments have been addressed, with only improving the references to be done which will be completed by the end of the weekend. As for the suggestion that the table should be sortable, I am afraid that I would not know how to go about doing this. In any case, this appears not to be essential as the featured List of Gillingham F.C. seasons suggests. kind regards, Jodie25 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you could respond inline to the comments made so the rest of us know how it's going. Regarding other lists, it may be that consensus has changed since it was made a featured list, so be aware of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have made all of the changes which you suggested, except the one which stated that the table should be made sortable. I have attempted it but am afraid that I lack the technical knowledge to be able to make the change successfully. However, as all other changes have been made I hope you will be able to give a positive review. with kind regards, --Jodie25 (Jodie25) 23:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead image should be cropped to remove that brick wall from the right-hand side.
  • Spell out FA before using the abbreviation.
  • "for their first season" -> "that season".
  • "The Dons have also..." not really encyclopedic, and actually confusing to people who don't know who the Dons are.
  • What is "senior football"? How does a non-expert understand the significance of this?
  • "by some distance." be precise.
  • " to make it into the " be more encyclopedic, so "to be promoted into" or similar.
  • Is the football symbol you use for "goals" accessible?
  • Why is Round 1 of the FA Trophy in the 04/05 season worthy of a link while the 6th round of the FA Vase in the 03/04 season not?
  • Prelim in the key, Prelim. in the table.
  • "Average Home Attendance" no need for the overcapitalisation.
  • " who, it transpired, had " no need for "it transpired"
  • You don't need AFC Wimbledon as a category.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_AFC_Wimbledon_seasons/archive1&oldid=1086352741"