• It is not anymore required (or even desired) in featured lists to boldface the article's title. Also for "Lists of X" writing a definition "X is..." at the start is not that popular anymore. You are pretty free in what you write, but it is probably a good idea to mention "Israel", "football" and "champion" somewhere close to the start.
  • Alright. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "began play" proper English? (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
  • Yes, it is. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You might want to add something like "in the same year" to the key ("Champions also won the Israeli State Cup", "Champions also won the League Cup")
  • Okay, fair point. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Full league standings and top scorer details not known at this time." Not known at all, or not known by the author of this list? Not sure whether such statement is common practice on wikipedia.
  • It is, I have written numerous featured articles and lists and used these exact words. It's just to make clear that the section is incomplete due to lack of reliable sources rather than incompleteness that the author is unaware of. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The second part of this list is very heavy on tables with no prose. Also many tables are narrowish due to the images placed on the right side of the page. I suggest to write short introductory paragraphs for each of the sections; to place the images next to those prose sections and to have the tables run over the full width of the page. Text for those paragraphs can be taken partially from the main intro or from the notes.
  • It's a list, not an article. I don't think this is really necessary. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just thought that it might reduce empty space (below the images) and would make for a more pleasant view. I also like having the main points of the tables pointed out in prose. Alternatively the empty space could be filled with more images. bamse (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... actually, I think you're right. My screen is very wide so I don't really notice this kind of thing, but making the window smaller makes me see what you mean... I'll write a few lines for the top of each section. — Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you think now? —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better and the new prose sections also tell about regional diffferences. Could you do with one image in the "Israeli Premier League" section? This would allow the table to span the full width of the page. bamse (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The 1942–43 season was "not finished". Could a note be added as to the circumstances?
  • Okay, done. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are Israeli League and Liga Alef joined in one table/section and not the other league names?
  • Fair point. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why have an empty "Notes" column for the "Israeli League and Liga Alef" table?
  • For consistency with the other tables. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove the parentheses from "Top scorer" in the heading since it is confusing (in the table cells in fact the club and not the player's name is in parentheses.)
  • You've misunderstood the parantheses. They are there because "Top scorer" is on the second line of the table, beneath "Player" and "Goals". It is done this way so that you can sort by player name and number of goals. It's common practice on featured lists. See some of the others I've written, such as Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent or List of New York Cosmos all-stars. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not sure I understand. Why would removing the parantheses not allow for sorting? bamse (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the point; the parantheses show that "Top scorer" is something that comes before "Player" and "Goals", not the other way around; in other words, "Top scorer Player" not "Player Top scorer". —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if "Top scorer" was in the first line, it would be without parantheses, correct? (In this case it would not be possible to have "Player" and "Goals" be sortable, correct?) bamse (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correct. It is in parantheses on the second line to show that it would be the first line normally, but isn't so that the table can be sortable. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible to put "Top scorer" above "Player" and "Goals" or would that brake sortability?
  • See above. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...club in this regard is Maccabi Tel Aviv, who have been..."; possibly "have"->"has"!?
  • Oh God, not this again. In British English, clubs are referred to in the plural when named ("Maccabi Tel Aviv have been") but in the singular when not ("The club has been"). Hope this clears that up. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are two districts with zero title wins mentioned in the last table?
  • To illustrate that there are districts in the country that have never had a title-winning side. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly Israeli football could be linked to Football in Israel instead?
  • As a compromise I'll link "Israeli" to Football in Israel and leave "football" as it is. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment the table does not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see the data tables tutorial.
• ref 2 needs the format parameter added to it to indicate that it is a PDF.
• The symbols used are not ACCESS-compliant. Replace the dagger and double-dagger with the ((dagger)) and ((double-dagger)) templates (the symbols redirect there, so you can just put in the braces) and the corresponding alt text.

Other than this it looks good. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cliftonian did the second and third, and I have done the first.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no alt text for the daggers and the you need to align the years centrally as they are to the left. NapHit (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would appreciate the addition of "association" in front of football in the opening sentence of the lead.
• "began play in" reads very USEng to me...
• " Since the first league season, 1931–32, only Maccabi Tel Aviv have not been relegated." this factoid seems oddly placed in the lead. I know it's a "since the first season" fact, but it's a little incongruous for me. I suspect it'd be better off in the next para.
• "Including all of these league seasons..." any reason why you shouldn't just say "In all.."?
• "13 and 12 victories respectively" - prefer titles to victories here. Or championships.
• " who finished the season unbeaten and also won the Palestine Cup during that season" repetitive...
• Not really convinced the double needs to be capitalised here.
• "On Israel's independence..." perhaps "Following" or "After" or even "Upon"...
• Third Place -> Third place.
• Ref for Steimach playing for Hapoel Petah Tikva in the image caption?
• "since the very first league season" no need for "very"
• "came top" would prefer "finished top of the league" or similar.
• "third places " shouldn't that be singular?
• thrice - I love it but it's archaic, three times is much more commonly used.
• "In the 1966–68 season, often referred to as the "double season", the sixteen teams played each other twice at home and twice away during a season lasting two years." is that referenced? particularly the quote?
• " six new names" strictly it was six new teams.
• "Due in part to this, these teams are sometimes known as the country's "Big Four"" copy-and-paste from the lead. I know the info is the same, but couldn't you rephrase it a little so it doesn't stick in my craw?
• I'm not sure how accessible that pie chart is.

Do you think it should be removed?, the point in it was to show percentage. exemple that Hapoel and Maccai Tel Aviv almost won half of the titles.

• You use plainrowheaders in the titles table but not the preceding tables. Is there a reason for that?

Yes because plainrowheaders doesn't bold and center the text. easier to read (seen it as one of the exemples in ACCESS page).

I understand what it does, I'm just curious why you use it inconsistently in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have redid all now to include plainrowheaders, for consistently matter.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is uber-anal but can you cite the cities/districts where the teams are stated to play?
• Ref 15, use pipeline to avoid the double full stop after F.C.
• External links dead for me (this could be me though).

Should tell people the official Israel FA page is in Hebrew, the Soccerway page (is it RS?) links to this week of this season, is that the intention? Perhaps worth an explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took Soccerway off and put "(Hebrew)" on the IFA one. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the IFA to the english version, hope you don't mind.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This has "Ligat ha'Al" as a category. What's that? There's no mention of it in the article.
• Similar question about Liga Alef.

My mistake about Liga Alef. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both me and Cliftonian done, I also moved the Ligat ha'Al category to Israeli Premier League.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done now. I don't know about the pie chart, as you say it may be an issue. I didn't do the plainrowheaders, I can only presume that was Honor; I've taken it off in any case. Ligat ha'Al is the Israeli Premier League's name in Hebrew, I don't know why the category is called that. I have added the translation to the lead. Liga Alef is mentioned in the article, it has a whole section in fact; have I misunderstood your question? External links are fine for me. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded on a couple of points while you were fixing up the other bits.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should also talk to User:RexxS about the accessibility of the pie chart. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the above, in addion I sent RexxS a message and will see what he says.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a concern about the accessibility of any object in a webpage, ask yourself a question such as "Is that object conveying information visually that ought to be also available to those who cannot see it?" In the case of the pie chart, it has all of its essential information also presented as text below the chart, so it provides the information. Of course, the visually-impaired can't take in at a glance information like 'Hapoel and Maccai Tel Aviv won almost half of the titles', but we are not actually denying anyone that information, we are merely adding a convenience for the sighted – much the same as a photo does when we add one. In fact, it would be true to say that the pie chart only summarises the information in the table (which is accessible), so the author is due some praise for enriching the information provided in the article. Well done! This is all just my humble opinion, of course, but feel free to ping me if there's anything I've been unclear about. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lekker lekker. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]