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 00:36, 22 April 2008.

Record home attendances of English football clubs[edit]

A list of the record attendances of the 92 clubs in English league football. When I first came across this list it was more or less complete, but lacked references. Now it is fully referenced and has had a productive peer review. I am therefore now submitting it in the hope that it cuts the mustard at FLC. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, some comments before I give unequivocal support.

Last two claims in the lead are unsourced. Now, if they're sourced in the main list then fine but you've sourced the previous statement so it creates an anomaly.
Since the table is sortable (and as you have done for Maine Road) the competition column should be referenced in each row since it could sort any which way.
No need to allow the ref col to be sortable, and I'd personally opt to centrally align it.
"As of April 4, 2008" - I'd write "Statistics correct as of April 4, 2008."
Does Group Stage need that capitalisation?

These are all minor issues; their resolution will result in my support for an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't linked the competition in each line... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I hadn't. Now done. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support wholeheartedly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the most minor of minor points. Does the rank column need to be sortable? It's the same sort as the attendance column. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks like a great job. Good job. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very well researched list which satisfies the FL criteria admirably. The nominator has clearly put a deal of work into it, taken it to peer review, left the peer review open long enough to gain a decent amount of comment and suggestion, and actively responded to said comment. A few odds and ends:

Is the title of the list misleading? especially in the light of the ongoing Arsenal players list FLRC. It's called ...of English football clubs, yet in the lead we find out it lists only Premier League and Football League clubs.
Should the image caption use St Mary's Stadium rather than the abbreviated St Mary's? Either way, the article name hasn't got a dot after the St
When the competition column is sorted, it looks rather odd with the FA Cup rounds sorted alphabetically, i.e fifth, first, fourth, etc
Do you know in which round of the Amateur Cup Barnet's attendance record was set?
If you're using citation templates for formatting references, I'd prefer to see them completed as per the documentation, specifically that the distinction between "work" and "publisher" be properly made. For instance, note currently #9 has the "work" parameter set to The Football Association, which is in fact the publisher; perhaps this should be changed to publisher, or the work should be The Football Association website, as you've done with the football club websites cited. There are (only a very few) others.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is not claiming to be Record home attendances of all English football clubs, and I do not think we should treat readers as if they have an absolute lack of common sense.

2) I have removed the rogue full stop. It is almost universally referred to without the "Stadium" appellation, so I don't think leaving it out it a problem.

3) I have no idea how to resolve this.

4) It seems it was the fourth round, now added.

5) I've made the changes, though I still maintain the distinction is of no consequence :)

Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agree entirely :-)

5) In terms of showing clearly where your information comes from, I'd agree it doesn't make any difference. But if you're going to choose to use citation templates to format your references on an article which you then nominate for featured status, I can't see an argument against filling them in precisely.

3) I've carried on where Peanut left off and got the cup rounds sorted. If you'd like me to do the league divisions similarly, for consistency, let me know.

Thanks, I've now sorted the league divisions. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 3) I've done the first. Basically use ((sort)). Though you'll have to keep it consistent with the divisions as well I suppose. I'll leave it up to you if you want to revert my change, or apply them more consistently. Peanut4 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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