This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my intention to get this article to FL status I feel the list is capable of meeting the criteria, and is based on other lists of this nature such as Manchester United F.C. seasons. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly at FL status. Just a few things to look at:
- I'd be tempted to create an abbrevation for the Lancashire League (LL?) and add the full league name in the key to narrow that column.
- The others column needs tidying up. Either split the competition and progress into two sub-columns as per recent seasons articles, or at the very least certainly swap the dash for endashes and finish off those missing dashes.
- Some of the refs need sorting
- 8 and 9 are inconsistent (looking at later ones, I presume 8 is wrong)
- 13 needs a full stop at the end
- As do 17 and 19 maybe?
- 21 needs round 3 changing to round three (or Round Three as per key)
- Think thats it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found one more thing.
- Charity Shields when shared ought to be coloured. Probably gold since it's a win of sorts. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- very strongly suggest you look at recently-featured seasons lists (Leeds United and Bradford City spring to mind) for some formatting tips, and at Leeds peer review, which was very much a community effort, for discussions/explanations. In particular, the Europe column needs splitting into two (comp name, and round reached), and only the round reached wants colouring where appropriate (see Leeds 1970-71 for example). Winners and Runners-up can be abbreviated to W and RU to reduce column widths.
- 1968-9 league posn should be 2nd not runners-up
- your prose needs a bit of a copyedit for grammar/punctuation.
at first glance it doesn't need much doing to it, I'll have a proper look later, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]