Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English football transfers winter 2002–03/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 15:48, 27 July 2011 [1].

List of English football transfers winter 2002–03 edit

Featured list candidates/List of English football transfers winter 2002–03/archive1

Nominator(s): 03 md 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is ready to be considered for Featured List status. It has a great deal of references and a good-size lead. 03 md 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive-by comment: definitely shouldn't start "This is a list of English football transfers for the 2002–03 winter transfer window." - this usage has been deprecated for quite some time now. Check out recently promoted FLs for the sort of start that is now expected..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that Chris. I need some help thinking of a better way to start - we're not dealing with a single club here. I will put it through peer review if necessary. 03 md 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would get it peer-reviewed. Also, I noted an error, Clemence never moved to Ipswich. Also some issues with unreferenced transfers and I see some maintenance tags have arrived since I first looked.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake re Clemence - you should know! I referenced every transfer that I could to BBC Sport but the ones without a reference did not have a page on the site. I will scour google to see if I can find any refs for these. BTW, I couldn't see any maintenance tags on the page. 03 md 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "disambiguation needed" tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to reference a load more - there are now only 47 out of the several hundred without one. Most of them I cannot find a RS for - can I get some help with these last few, or should I reference these to the transfer lists. 03 md 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this useful; it certainly qualifies as reliable in my books. Seegoon (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link.

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Don't think the bolding in the lead is needed, especially since the "This is a list of" has been done away with.

Removed bolding.

Would be nice to have transfer linked early in the article for all the non-soccer fans out there. I'm not a fan of going heavy on the links, but for an item that could be considered sports jargon, one is useful in this spot.

Done.

Premier League should also be linked in the lead.

Done.

"Players who were out of contract before 31 August were avaliable for transfer". This is 31 August 2002, correct? Might be a good idea to indicate that.

Done.

Transfers: "The transfers are also sourced to the general BBC Sport transfer lists." Why is "also" here? I don't see anything earlier in the article mentioning the BBC's lists. It makes sense to have the "also" in the next sentence, but not here.

Done. 03 md 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Lee Bowyer photo caption, a cite would be nice for West Ham being "relegation-threatened".

Done.

Reference 163 needs a publisher added to the citation.

Done.

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for all of your comments, all of which have been addressed. 03 md 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more minor one, which I only discovered because it was by something I was checking: the publisher of reference 138 (Sky Sport) needs an s at the end to be consistent with the other similar cites. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - Are all the transfers available in the general sources and if so what is the purpose of individually sourcing the transfers, as surely they are redundant if the info is in the general sources? NapHit (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general sources wouldn't be enough for a FL - it would mean using the same source for about 80 entries. The BBC/Sky Sports refs are an extra insurance, and give more information on the transfer for people interested. 03 md 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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