I've listed this article for peer review because it's part of my on-going push to get all-thing Ipswich Town up to featured status. It's similar to a number of existing Featured Lists (such as
List of Aston Villa F.C. players) so I'm sure it's not far off already. Please feel free to hurl abuse in my general direction. As always, thanks for your time and contributions.
The Rambling Man16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Mattythewhite
Nothing much to say really. Just:
Shouldn't "0" still be given for players that haven't scored any goals?
In the goals column, either have 0 for all of them, use a dash, or all blank. I prefer 0 to be honest but at the moment Lewis Price has 0, others have blank.
Unnatural capitals - positions such as Wing half, Full back, shouldn't have the second word capitalised. "major Senior competition" (in the colours key) likewise.
The Notes column should be left blank if there isn't a relevant note. It's not like goals, where a player either has 0 goals or 12 goals or whatever, with notes he either needs one or he doesn't. (I'd argue the same for the captaincy column, but not as forcefully.)
i'm not really really strong about it - but would you have put all those dashes if you weren't following the Villa layout? I just think the notes are more noticeable if they're the only thing in the column.
Struway2 |
Talk18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No, not at all. I'm a fan of ITFC and statistics, but the guy that runs that site must do it full time because it is extensive in the extreme. It's fab for this sort of thing.
The Rambling Man18:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I think its FL standard, just wondering why players such as Pat Sharkey, Amir Karic, and Bruce Twamley are in the list? As they have played so few games
Everlast191018:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks fine for FLC in my opinion. Only thing I would suggest would be expanding the reference information a bit with accessdate, publisher etc.
Dave101→
talk18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Clarify what "significant contributions to the club's history" means. It remains rather vague whether or not players are eligible to be included in the list.
The references in the reference section do not point to the information in the list. I have to do research to find it. You don't need to mention the source in the lead, but I think you should clarify the sources of the information. –
Ilse@08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)reply
You are right. But I have another problem, I took two random players, Mick Hill and Colin Viljoen, and I don't see the numbers matching this list. For Mick Hill the
source mentions 74, the list 77. For Colin Viljoen 367, the list 368. Could you explain somewhere why there is a difference? –
Ilse@09:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm, well for Mick Hill, that page says 63(3) league so 66 in total, and 11 playoff/cup so 77 in total - the list says 77 also. For Viljoen, you're right it's incorrect, but it should be 372 so I've corrected it. I'll recheck every one of them. Quite a lot of data so the odd mistake is likely, but unacceptable. The appearances data is explained in the lead - it's all first-class appearances plus substitute appearances.
The Rambling Man10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I do see what you mean, though, especially for the early players who took part in all manner of silly local cup competitions - I've added another note to clarify this...
The Rambling Man11:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Explain what the "Ipswich Town Hall of Fame" and "inaugural members" are, or wikilink or remove them.
Well, it's difficult beyond saying it's a Hall of Fame for Ipswich players. I've explained how they were chosen. And inaugural is just English and doesn't need explanation or wikilinking in my opinion.
The Rambling Man07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm ok with it the way it is after re-reading the text. –
Ilse@
Is there a reason why (only) John Wark's picture is included?
Consider adding a picture that really says something about the list, or that shows more players, otherwise there is an unbalanced focus on John Wark. –
Ilse@08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)reply