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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

List of FA Community Shield matches[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of FA Community Shield matches/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original version and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments Lead image caption is fragment so no full stop required. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Isn't there a tournament style infobox that could be used here or do you think that's unnecessary...? It appears the trend for English football tournaments is to include an infobox for the main article (e.g. FA Cup, EFL Cup, FA Community Shield, etc.), while not including one in the list of winners (e.g. List of FA Cup finals, List of EFL Cup finals, etc.). However, those lists were promoted almost a decade ago, and I'm not aware of any changes to consensus on this issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] " champions of the Premier League and the winners of the FA Cup. " this is the current arrangement, as you expand later, perhaps you can make that clear here too? Added "presently contested between …" in the first sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] You don't mention that the FA in the title means Football Association, nor relate the trophy to that organisation... Specified in the first sentence that they are the organisers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Don't think you need to link Canada. Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Double is overlinked (and differently). Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] "runner-up finishes " feels like an odd turn of phrase for the losers of a one-off cup contest... You're right; got the wording off List of UEFA Super Cup matches. Changed to "losses". —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] "The 2017 edition will be contested by Chelsea and Arsenal." probably needs a citation and worth just saying it'll be at Wembley once again... Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Any thoughts on the criticism of the contest as reasonably meaningless? This article is mildly interesting in that regard. Yes – I've added several refs to support that criticism and juxtaposed it with several historical moments in the final paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Brighton and Huddersfield need A's in their FCs in the summary table. Done for Huddersfield. I thought Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. were simply "F.C." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] @The Rambling Man: thanks for your feedback; I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Lead image caption is fragment so no full stop required.

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't there a tournament style infobox that could be used here or do you think that's unnecessary...?

It appears the trend for English football tournaments is to include an infobox for the main article (e.g. FA Cup, EFL Cup, FA Community Shield, etc.), while not including one in the list of winners (e.g. List of FA Cup finals, List of EFL Cup finals, etc.). However, those lists were promoted almost a decade ago, and I'm not aware of any changes to consensus on this issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" champions of the Premier League and the winners of the FA Cup. " this is the current arrangement, as you expand later, perhaps you can make that clear here too?

Added "presently contested between …" in the first sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't mention that the FA in the title means Football Association, nor relate the trophy to that organisation...

Specified in the first sentence that they are the organisers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't think you need to link Canada.

Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double is overlinked (and differently).

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"runner-up finishes " feels like an odd turn of phrase for the losers of a one-off cup contest...

You're right; got the wording off List of UEFA Super Cup matches. Changed to "losses". —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The 2017 edition will be contested by Chelsea and Arsenal." probably needs a citation and worth just saying it'll be at Wembley once again...

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any thoughts on the criticism of the contest as reasonably meaningless? This article is mildly interesting in that regard.

Yes – I've added several refs to support that criticism and juxtaposed it with several historical moments in the final paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brighton and Huddersfield need A's in their FCs in the summary table.

Done for Huddersfield. I thought Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. were simply "F.C." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thanks for your feedback; I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Adityavagarwal This is an amazing article for an FL. There was just some minor extra spaces which is taken care of now. Great one; support from my side! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support There were one or two tweaks I considered but they are stylistic in nature and wouldn't affect my support either way. Good work has been done on this article to get it up to FL standard and I'm satisfied that it meets the requirements. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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