This peer review discussion has been closed.
Got some more refs to plug in, but what else might I need to do before I take it to FLC...........?
Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that the Scottish Premier League is technically separate to the Scottish Football League, but it seems daft to count the current SPL clubs as former League members. I'd prefer them to be included, with the wording of lead phrased in such a way as to include them.
- "I'd prefer them to be included" - included in the article? Or not included in the article? The two sentences of this section seem to contradict each other..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conceding eight goals appears to have its after-effects ;) I'd prefer them not to be included, as they are still part of the four division pyramid. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, however they are not members of the SFL, so to keep the title accurate they have to be included. Otherwise it would need to be renamed to List of former Scottish Football League and Scottish Premier League clubs, or something equally horrific, or else reword the lead to say something like "this lists all former member clubs except those in the SPL" and run the risk of something at the FLC saying "Hang on a minute, why the exception for those in the SPL, eh?". Having typed all that I guess I can in fact see both sides of the argument, maybe I'll ask for the rest of the football project's thoughts..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one that's similar in a way. Airdrie United may possess the league share that belonged to Clydebank, but make no claim to Clydebank's history and are in effect a separate club, so I think Clydebank (1965–2002) should be included. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Not keen on centrally aligned notes column, looks awful to me!
- Lead image could be made larger per WP:MOS#Images - 300px?
- "... legalised in 1893.[1] In 1893 a ..." reads awkwardly, flow the two "in 1893"'s better...
- Last para of lead needs some citation.
- "Clydebank (original club)" needs some explanation.
- Considerable overlinking if this table is to remain unsortable.
- Explain SJFA.
- Not convinced about the pedigree of Historical football shirts website - I know it's been used before but can we be convinced it's a truly reliable source?
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the comments, I'll address them all soon-ish. The HFK website seems OK to me. It has an overall editor who vets contributions sent in by people, so it's not like random people can just edit it themselves. The site's been cited in magazine articles and has been commissioned to provide data/images for books. I'd say it's certainly as reliable as things like FCHD or Pride of Anglia...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively I've found that on Soccerbase you can view a page for each team where there's a drop down list of their league tables by season, so I could always use that as an alternative....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, well keep it in stock and see what happens when you get to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or there's scottishfootballarchive.co.uk, which has pages like this for every club. It looks like a reliable source to me, whaddya reckon....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one thing to say, I noticed they said " Any changes made to the Wikipedia article will not be immediately reflected here." which means this source may (after time) be recursive. I'd avoid.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that affects the FCHD-style listings of finishing positions by clubs, though, only the copy of the WP article which appears in a sidebar..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]