Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

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 promoted 22:06, 25 January 2008.

previous FLC (11:12, 14 December 2007)

Hello all, relaunching the bid to push this list to featured status. We've just had a very successful and thorough peer review which I hope has covered most bases and alleviated most of the concerns from the previous somewhat acrimonious (and failed) FLC. Don't hold back, don't hesitate to comment, I believe we're as close as possible (with some minor tweaks perhaps) to getting this (at last) to FL. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As a reviewer of the article in both the previous FLC and the PR, I can say that this list has improved dramatically. It has gone through a thorough fact-check and copyedit. I believe it now meets all the featured list criteria and so, I support. Woody (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support having taken part in 2 or else 3 peer reviews, and commented on the previous FLC, I now think everything is finally in order and looking pretty stable. It abides by several other football seasons articles. It's fully referenced, has a fairly relevant image and everything has been checked. Peanut4 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm not happy with the splitting of the "Europe/Other" column into two sub-columns, but that's by the by. The list seems to pass the FL criteria regardless of that, so you have my support. – PeeJay 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, thanks Peejay. I think you're right, it was one of those subjective decisions and there are pro's and con's. The good news is that it's still the same info and presented, in my opinion, a little bit less garishly. However, to each their own. Thanks again for taking the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Don't mention it, TRM. Just glad to be a part of the process. – PeeJay 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all my concerns reasonably addressed in the Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I commented at the previous FLC and was an active participant at the recent PR; I did some work on the article but was not a major editor. The list has improved significantly since its first FLC and in my view now satisfies the FL criteria. It follows the format of previously successful football seasons FLs, and is now stable and fully referenced. There are two points in the lead section which you might consider (and I might have thought of at the PR). Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does The Football League need to capitalise "The"? I know that's their official title at the moment, but we're referring to 1920.
    • I'm not sure. Research I've done says The Football League was founded in 1888 and even the official site states "...and thus the seeds of The Football League were sown..." with regard to its conception... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third para, the ICFC Trophy playoff game appears as once in the list of what Leeds have been runners-up in and how often. As this was a one-off game to decide who kept the trophy once the competition was superseded, it only happened once, so (to me at least) it reads a bit oddly. Maybe if it was turned round to read The club have also been runners-up five times in the League Championship, three times in the FA Cup, once each in the League Cup, the Charity Shield, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, the Cup Winners' Cup and the European Cup, and lost the play-off for the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Trophy. it'd look less uncomfortable.
    • Agreed. I've reworded per your suggestion. Thanks for all your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't mind, the wrong instance of the ICFC is now wikilinked in that sentence. Worse, it looks like tautology. Can I suggest replacing "the play-off" with "a special play-off". It would be even better if those words were linked to an appropriate bit of another article that explained what happened. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems to link to the right article to me...? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The link is on the second instance of the name in the same sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I see it, the link is to article Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Trophy Play-Off, which does describe what the playoff was for. Is that not right? Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first instance isn't the play-off, it's the ICFC itself which is linked to a couple of sentences earlier... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK it was me (caffeine currently flowing). Duh. Could you apply that wikilink to the "special" wording I suggested to avoid giving the impression this idiot got? :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (←) Not overkeen on "special", a bit peacock for me. But "one-off play-off" sounds weird too... any other suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the descriptive "the playoff to keep the Inter-City Fairs Cup Trophy"? --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, I've implemented as you suggested Dweller, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds fine, but does the "to keep" bit need linking? Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair point, just "the playoff" wikilinked now. Hope that pleases all parties! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the one microscopic quibble that I don't think "Trophy" should have a capital letter in the sentence discussed at such great length just above this comment, as it's not a proper noun. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I'm not sure play off should be capped in the table for this entry either. Peanut4 (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're both probably right. It followed the capitalisation of the Wiki article, which is also probably wrong. Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guessed so which is wasn't WP:BOLD enough to change it! Peanut4 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.