Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons/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 promoted by Dabomb87 15:17, 16 July 2010 [1].

List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons

Featured list candidates/List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A football club list of seasons that follows the standard and accepted structure of those that have passed this process in the past, like List of York City F.C. seasons and the recently promoted List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sandman888 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* "The Second Division was renamed League One as part of a rebranding exercise by the Football League" cant verify w. source

I believe this is verified by the source. It states "Lord Mawhinney also announced a substantial re-branding, under which The League reclaimed its heritage and renamed the divisions The Championship, League 1 and League 2". Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hull were elected to the Football League Second Division for the 1905–06 season" can you perhaps expand this. Why was hull elected to 2nd division and not somewhere else?

I imagine because the Football League was the place to be; there's not really anywhere else the club have applied to, apart from the Midland League. Just a case of them wanting to play in the FL really... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Club's best League finishing position." reads a bit awkward

Reworded to "Club's best finishing position in the league" and have uncapitalised "League" to the more generic "league" due to the finish being in the Premier League. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per mos:bold topscorer shd be in italics. Or so they say.

Could you point out to me where it says this? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Sandman is referring to is MOS:BOLD, which says "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." What that basically means is that you shouldn't use boldface text as an indicator. Since you already use italics for something else, you could use a color and/or a symbol to indicate the top scorer in the division. The same applies to using bold for the league change. — KV5 • Talk • 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now replaced the bold with symbols. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Division shown in bold when it changes due to promotion, relegation or reorganisation." how does divisions get promoted?

Think you must have misread this. It doesn't state the divisions are promoted, but that the divisions are shown in bold when a promotion occurs. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but the 'it' refers to division? There is nothing else in the sentence it (the it) can refer to. Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "it" does indeed refer to division. But the emphasis is that the division changes (ie that the club is playing in a different division), rather than it being promoted, relegated etc, which would make no sense. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the club that changed between divisions, not divisions between clubs. Sandman888 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each row of the "Division" column contains a short name for the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row. The word "division" is thus used as a convenient abbreviation for "The name of the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row". "The name of the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row" will usually change from one row to the next – i.e. one season to the next – if the club is promoted or relegated. "The name of the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row" can also change from one season to the next if the league is reorganised. Hope this helps ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it does. I'm not sure the non-footies at peer review wd have though. Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Top scorer shown in bold when he was also top scorer for the division." isn't it "in that division" ?

Reworded to "Top scorer shown in bold when he was also top scorer in that division". Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, wd prefer "DD Month YYYY" format.

Is there a guideline/policy that recommends this method? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS here Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Written dates and accessdates out in full. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF refs shd have authors and dates for all references, not just one.

Authors added. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and dates. Also include dates. Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added dates. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"League results shown in italics for abandoned competitions" -> "League results shown in italics for the 1939-40 competition, which was abandoned due to WW2" unless I'm missing something

I think the original wording is better, as the First World War also led to the abandonment of competitions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no league results marked in italics around WWI. If that is not a mistake, then it shd read as suggested as there is only the one instance. Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was concluded at the Lincoln seasons FLC, there are two league rows in italics and both of these contain leagues that had the result of being abandoned due to war. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I reviewed said list. On that list there are two rows, one was abandoned due to war, the other (the first) was abandoned. On your list there is one row of league results, so therefore you can write in full why that is in italics. The conclusion was, if any, that the text in italics is not a league result, since the league was never started. Sandman888 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the two lists, I think, are symmetrical with regard to competitions that were abandoned due to war, both being caused by WW1 and WW2. These are denoted by "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War.", the 1939–40 season being displayed in italics and "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War." So surely if the message suffices for the Lincoln list it will do for this, as they're both denoting the exact same thing? Mattythewhite (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, the Lincoln list include a 'regularly' abandoned competition and one due to war-time. That gives two different types of abandonment so a general note is in place. You, however, only have one abandoned competition, so it wd make sense to specify why that league was abandoned in the first place, because a more general note is not needed. The text placed across the row, (The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War. & the other) needs no further specification. Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I now see the other abandoned competition on the Lincoln list. Do you think a reword to something like "League results shown in italics for competitions abandoned due to war" would be better? Personally I think it's fine as it is but if you feel it would be better changed then it's no biggy. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) yes, that wd be nice. Sandman888 (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten as stated above. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments few quick bits

~~Hull's FA Cup defeat to Stockton was 4-1 in the replay after a 3-3 draw, not 7-4 on aggregate, see the FA website's archive.~~
- Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to link every season mentioned in the lead to xxxx-yy in English football? might be better to restrict the links to the first time you refer to a season, and then only link seasons that are particularly relevant to Hull City's history.
- Not sure the links are a problem personally, and choosing links to seasons that are particularly relevant to the club's history seems a little subjective to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made the comment in relation to WP:LINK#Overlinking and underlinking, which suggests we link to articles "that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", and that overlinking "can make it more difficult for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value". Wasn't really sure how much more understanding is added by linking to 1935–36 in English football and 1955–56 in English football, articles which only contain a set of league tables. It's not enough to stop me supporting, I'm maybe over-sensitive after getting involved with a Featured Article Review and ending up having to copyedit what seemed like hundreds of year-in-English-football links out of Arsenal F.C.....
~~Image caption is a sentence so needs a full stop. If it was me, I might change it to "Hull City players and staff celebrate..."~~
- Added full stop and reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Top scorers column doesn't say what competitions are included (at time of writing, neither does Lincoln's, you should have followed York City :-)~~
- Added in a note. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~You could consider adding an Average (league) attendance column, if sources are available (please don't feel obliged to just because I suggested it here: some of these lists have them, a lot don't)~~
- This would require going through each of the seasons in the Peterson book and working the average attendances out manually, and as this would be a time-consuming and arduous task I think I'll probably do it sometime after this nomination is closed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some "complete record"-type books give the average attendance. If yours doesn't, then I wouldn't bother with it.
Support sorry I needed reminding to revisit this review. Meets FL criteria, as far as I can tell. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – If I had to make one complaint about the list, it is that "being" is used a bit much for my taste, particularly in the "with .... being" structure. I think this can make the writing more wordy than its needs to be, and alternatives can typically be used easily. However, everything else looks solid from my vantage point, so I'm willing to accept it and back the list immediately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have had a go at some rewording, and cheers for the support. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not entirely convinced you need to repeat "association football club" in quick succession, i.e. you could probably stick with Hull City A.F.C. in the lead.
- Changed to "Hull City A.F.C." Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" in 1904. The team's first competitive matches came in the FA Cup later that year" picky, but you didn't say how late in the year they were founded, clearly they couldn't have done anything until "later", i.e. after they were founded...
- Removed "later that year". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the Third Division North was won.[3] Relegation back to the Third Division North came " any way to avoid the quick repeat of the division name?
- Reworded to "Relegation back to this division". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Third Division championship came in the 1965–66 season ..." you should be explicit, i.e. the club won the division that year.
- Reworded to "Third Division championship was won". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The semi-final of the Watney Cup was reached" reads really odd, go active and say "Hull reached the semi-final of the ..."
- Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"reach the Final of..." not sure these should be capitalised but would be interested to hear other opinions.
- Mentions of specific finals are usually capitalised, ie 2010 UEFA Champions League Final. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
End of second/beginning of third para sees a lot of "... saw ..." - mix it up a bit.
- Reworded a couple of these. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"although relegation came in the second season" again, go active, i.e. although the club was relegated the following season....
- Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs using hyphens to separate scorelines/year ranges should use en-dashes, e.g. 28 and 32-34. There are others. Check 'em all!
- All dash issues fixed using the script. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good work. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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