List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Following the last FLC, the list has unedergone some transformations, however I'm unsure whether some items should stay or be removed, mainly the squad numbers section, hopefully this can be resolved during this peer review. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs)

• My initial comment is that the tables don't sort properly - when sorting the goals & appearances columns they sort by the first digit rather than the actual number e.g. when sorting the top scorers in descending order of total goals it starts with Toshack on 96 going down to Goddard on 79 and then Rush on 346. I think you need to copy the code from the tables in List of Liverpool F.C. players. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreview

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "club" or "Club" in lead.
• "...is the record goalscorer at the club..." - could be misconstrued that he's still "...at the club..." - perhaps, "...for the club..."?
• Don't like the subsections 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 because there is no 1.1.2 or 1.2.2 so what's the point?
• The Callaghan sentence in the Lead and Appearances section is almost identical and doesn't read too well.
• "Of the current squad..." - this makes the article inherently unstable as it will need to be updated with every appearance of the current record holder.
• You use ref [1] to explain all the claims in Appearances section but "He surpassed Ian Callaghan's old record of 89 on May 1, 2007, when Liverpool faced Chelsea in the semi-finals of the UEFA Champions League." isn't there. It may not be the only thing that needs different citation.
• Why doesn't Max Thompson have an article? If he's played for Liverpool and is a club record holder then he's definitely notable enough to have at least a stub.
• Same for Ted Doig.
• Rows 17 and 19 in appearance table go a bit awry when re-ordered in the league cup column. Also a problem for Elisha Scott for Europe and Ian Callaghan all the way across ... (btw I'm viewing in Safari under Mac OS 10.5.1). Hmm, I think this is because of the central justification. It goes weird when reordered.

More to come... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "..over Strømsgodset I.F. in 1974,.." in which competition?
• "...during 1894–95, ..." - I'd prefer "...during the 1894–95 season,..."
• "The least goals Liverpool ..." - I'd prefer "The fewest number of goals scored by Liverpool in a season..."
• "This also represents Liverpool's record FA Cup attendance" - merge the fact it was in the FA Cup with the previous sentence.

More to come... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't like the squad numbers at all really, bordering on trivia, not sure what it adds to the article especially when numbers are used by more than one player in a season and towards the end of the table where you have rows of only one or two players.
• Why top 14 transfers? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've dealt with your comments, it is the top 14 transfers because the last two transfers are both thre same hence the reason they are both 14, there are 15 in total. NapHit (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

Here we go then...

• I don't know if you copied the Villa lead, or you both copied from somewhere else, but it needs a bit of a seeing-to. Lose various from opening sentence. Link Liverpool F.C. first mention after the opening sentence.
• The club was founded in 1892 and have played ... since their formation. Not keen on mixing singular and plural in the same sentence, you could turn it round and say They have played at ... since their foundation in 1892.
• 2nd para. Needs a bit of a rewrite. In the first sentence they're one of the most successful clubs in England, by the third they're the most successful club. Also need an as of date.
• 3rd para. Not creation. Foundation or formation, or leave it out. If I were you I'd hide this paragraph, write down for yourself what the article contains, and then change it to what you've written.
• One thing that the 3rd para says, is that This article lists all of the major honours won by Liverpool since their creation. Except it doesn't, and it should.
• Where you've got one reference covering a whole paragraph or section, make sure you've checked that it does cover everything in that section.
• Appearances and goalscorers tables need tidying. Some entries have zero-spacers, some don't, or have extra spaces, and it makes the tables look messy.
• International. Change "whilst playing for Liverpool" to "while a Liverpool player", they don't mean the same thing. I'd wikilink World Cup the first time you mention it. And where you say "at the yyyy World Cup", having already mentioned World Cup earlier in the sentence, perhaps change it to pipe the yyyy FIFA World Cup link to "in yyyy", just reduces the repetition. What does "foreign" mean (non-English, non-UK...)?
• Club records paras. Where you've put "least", as in "the least wins in a season", etc, should be "fewest". I'd pipe Besiktas JK to just Besiktas. Also, a bit too much Liverpool – say "they" or "the club" occasionally.
• Transfer fees need referencing.
• Think you were right to drop the squad numbers section.

In general, I like the way you've used prose sections to lead in to the tables, makes it read a bit less like a page from the News of the World annual. And the changes you've made in response to other suggestions have made a definite improvement. The one thing that doesn't really work for me is having the Club records section as sort-of prose rather just a straightforward list. If it was prose, with odd bits of explanation or expansion on the bare facts, it'd probably work better, but as all you have is effectively a list with a few verbs inserted, it makes it quite difficult reading. Others might well think the opposite :-) Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]