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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [1].

List of Oxford United F.C. players

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because i feel it is of the standard to be featured. A peer review in February was very helpful and all suggestions were implemented, (nothing much as changed since then). Any comments will be appreciated and hopefully rectified. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why aren't all the Oxford United F.C. players on the list? This article should be named to List of Oxford United F.C. players with 100 or more appearances if you only include those players. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Colin's comments and Scorpion's closing comments at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1, I don't think there is a requirement for the title to explicitly reflect the inclusion criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. You need to set a lower limit to 'tallest buildings' or you will end up with every building. If this were called List of Oxford United F.C. players with the most appearances it might compare. But the name suggests that the list should be all-inclusive. Geraldk (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the point of not adding all the players? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford United were founded in 1893. If all of the players were added to the list (at least 800), the list would become way too big and unmanagable. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you only start the list once the team becomes professional in 1949 anyway. How many players are there since 1949? A couple other minor comments:
  • In the intro to the table you say that the lists includes players with 100 appearances or an international cap. Dean Windass fits into neither of those categories.
Rectified
  • You have two sections titled 'footnotes'. the latter should probably be folded into the references section, which should be subdivided into general and specific references.
Done
  • Why are some of the players unlinked rather than red or blue linked?
Those that are red-linked are notable enough for an article. Those that are unlinked are not notable enough for their own articles as they only played in the Southern Football League, which isn't deemed a notable league in WP:ATHLETE for players to have an article.
  • You may want to scrub the second paragraph of the lead and see if there are any statements that need to be referenced with an in-line citation. I didn't catch any, but a second pair of eyes may help.
Found one which i added a citation to.
  • It may be interesting to add to the lead some additional trivia summarizing data from the table. Where do these players come from? How many are from Europe, how many from other parts of the world? etc.
Added a sentance about nationalities, may add more later.
Geraldk (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. As for the number of players since 1949, i am not sure of a specific numbe and will have to research that. My understanding from the Aresnal list Struway2 mentioned above and from other lists in the past was that although the title may be misrepresentitive, it dwould be too complex for all lists to state the requirements as part of the title. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was impressively quick. I guess the best way to resolve this before you go do a ton of research is to ask what other similar lists do. What's the precedent? If the precedent is the 100 appearance mark, Im happy to go along. Geraldk (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Of the 11 List of xxxx F.C. players that are FL, 7 use the 100 and more appearances. Two of the four that don't are Australian league teams who were formed in 2004 and such can easily incldse all players. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough precedent for me. I won't worry about it then. Noticed though, that not all of the current player names are bolded. Geraldk (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. They were added recently and i must have missed them.

Eddie6705 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all of my concerns are now addressed. Geraldk (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa im working on that now. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the dead link. Eddie6705 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text, although as i am not really familiar with it, i hope it is alright. Are there are other points you need looking at? Eddie6705 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a gander later. The alt text issue just happened to jump out at me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of my concerns were dealt with at the peer reviews, even if they were a long time ago. Couple of picky little comments:
  • Where you had to use allfootballers.com as a reference, could those now be sourced to the Brodetsky book instead?
Indeed they could, Done.
  • And if not, there's something wrong with the formatting of Ceri Evans' and Gary Smart's refs, looks like you've missed a pipe character out.
See above
  • Note C says stats are taken from Howland except where stated, but several players in the list have a note 5 which references Howland. What's the difference?
Erm, not too sure to be honest, have 'removed.
  • One thing I do wonder about is section 5a of the FL criteria, which says the list should have "a minimal proportion of red links". I'm aware this was the subject of discussion and an RfC recently, and I'm not sure what conclusions were reached, if any. But there do seem to be rather more red links than how I'd understand "a minimal proportion". Perhaps one of the FL directors might clarify the matter?
I am going to use the Broetsky books to create articles for all of them if possible. I will try and do some today. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created 11 new articles and think that the few left would be classed as minimal. I will make the others later, i think i'm getting square eyes. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments resolved, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – List appears to meet FL criteria now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Aren't they based in Oxford? Have things changed?
Changed to Oxford
  • I thought we were in the 09/10 season now.
Updates
  • "Headington F.C. before adding the suffix United six years later" odd since this would possibly mean you're saying "Headington F.C. United". It needs rewording.
Reworded
  • "The club was elected into the Southern Football League in 1949, before replacing Accrington Stanley in the Football League in 1962" sure. before means that it happened earlier, but how, exactly did it? There's a big gap here, I know this isn't the potted history but you need to make the sentences logical and sequential.
Removed before and slightly reworded.
  • "The club spent 44 years in the Football League, reaching the First Division at the end of the 1984–85 season, spending three years in the top tier.[2]" This sentence seems to have two clauses, the first is fine but the second should be a sequitor so say something like "season and spent..." perhaps?
Yes, changed.
  • "with 478 being in the league." - "being" is superfluous.
Removed
  • "John Shuker, the team's longest serving player, made a total of 534 appearances with 478 being in the league. He holds the club record for the most league appearances and the most overall appearances" - almost repeating yourself. By "longest serving" do you mean most appearances or longest signed to the club? If the former then the current wording seems a bit over the top..
Removed longest serving player.
  • There's an issue here - you say that Atkinson made more appearances than Shuker but discount some because of appearances in the Southern League. This needs serious clarification.
Have clarified in the article. Shuker holds the records since 1962 when the club turned professional, Atkinson hold the record including those games before 1962.
Done.
  • Footnote B is fine but it doesn't explain situations when you have two date ranges like Joey Beauchamp.
Expanded note
  • Some redlinked players and some without redlinks at all. Presumably all non-redlinked are "non-notable" per WP:ATHLETE? Otherwise be consistent.
Correct. All non-redlinked players are not notable. I am in the process of creating articles for the red-linked players.
  • If I had my way, I'd prefer notes to be standalone, so, for instance, note E would say "John Aldridge ..." - it may not be policy/guideline, but it would make the note more useful.
I don't no if it is plicy, but it does make the notes easier to understand. Added.
  • Technicalities like "transfer fee" and "full international" in your notes may need linking.
Linked.
  • First gen ref could use an en-dash (even if the authors didn't use one).
Done
  • I think you only really need the OUFC players cat, not necessarily the OUFC players cat. But it's no biggie.
Removed Oxford F.C. cat.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, i haven't explained it like i thought it in my head :S Basically i'm trying to get across that Shuker played his legue games in the league, whereas Atkinson played some in the southern league, although i'm struggling to put that into words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie6705 (talk 15:53, 19 October 2009
Now the article says that Oxford turned pro in both 1949 and 1962! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Eddie6705 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • First two sentences: "Oxford United F.C. is an English professional association football club based in Oxford. As of the 2009–10 season, they play in the Conference National which is...". Is the club singular (is) or plural (they)? Please pick one and make it consistent throughout the lead, unless there is a good reason for the existing system.
  • "they play in the Conference National which is the first tier of non-league football, and the fifth level of the English football league system." I'd be tempted to move the comma to after Conference National.
  • "reaching the First Division at the end of the 1984–85 season and spent three years in the top tier." "spent" → "spending".
  • Comma after "the most overall appearances since 1962"? Another before "netting 107 times"?
  • Little tip on the alt text: it doesn't generally have names like Ron Atkinson. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think i have dealt with all concerns. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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