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 Dabomb87 14:32, 21 August 2010 [1].

List of FC Barcelona records and statistics[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona records and statistics/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone through PR. It has just been merged with List of FC Barcelona honours (that seemed to be the consensus), which was also through PR. It's based on the other FL stats-pages. Comments are welcome! Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have informed all non-usual reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews.

Comment—a dab link to River Plate; no dead external links. Ucucha 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support—The list is logical and understandable. It appears to be properly cited. My only concern is that the list may not be of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support. Reg. "general interest", there exist a long-established consensus on WP:FOOTY that these list are appropiate. It is also used in the existing featured topics on football.Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Sandman, there is definitely consensus for doing it in this way. As a side note, if the statistics of one of the biggest sports clubs in the world isn't general interest, then I've wasted a heck of a lot of time on various Hertfordshire, Watford and Seattle Sounders lists! --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've changed my vote from "Weak Support" to "Support". I still have the concern whether this list is of general interest, but that probably says more about my general lack of interest in sports, than on whether the list is of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (and yes, it's good to see you back) "various numbers of records" no need for "numbers of" "have set a record in winning" - set records. "Since it began playing in regional competitions to the end of the Catalan championship in 1940 they won..." - it->they... reads badly. "On the domestic level " maybe just "Domestically.."? "still running" hyphenate if you use this phrase. "The club has a tradition for high-profile players; paying large transfer fees for some of the most accoladed players" comma, not semicolon. Maradona should be Diego Maradona in the lead. And stop repeating "they" here. "When they paid a record £5 million for Maradona in 1982 they sold him two years later for another record £7 million to Napoli. " no, they didn't get 7 million back "when they paid a record-5m", they got it two years later. what do you mean? If they sold him for 5 million and a pound it was still a new transfer record. It's not profit record, just transfer. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] He means that it is wrong to say "when they paid....in 1982.....they sold him two years later", that is completely grammatically incorrect. A better wording would be something like "The club paid a record £5 million for Diego Maradona in 1982 and sold him two years later for another record £7 million to Napoli" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh okay. Inserted. Thanks :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The clubs players have received...." club's. "thereby setting a record number of awards received by clubs." forget this, just say "The club's players have received a record number..." That's a start, i.e. the lead done. More to come when you've resolved this. Oh, check for hyphens (I've seen a few) instead of en-dashes... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Check all I believe Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose "they have set record in winning" records? And perhaps instead of this, "they have won record numbers of both official and unofficial competitions" (although I would question the inclusion of anything considered "unofficial" here without good reason). Where else to include the Inter-cities fairs cup? Shd it not be mentioned? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Since they began playing in regional competitions to the end of the Catalan championship in 1940 they won a record 23 times out of 38 possible." -> needs a comma after 1940, and what did they win 23/38? "regional competitions"? Finally, would say something more like "they won a record 23 titles from a possible 38." Done Domsetically -> typo. Done "Copa del Rey and Spanish Supercup of the still-running competitions." wrong way round. Both of these are still-running, so you could say "Domestically the club has a record number of titles in the still-running competitions, namely the Copa del Rey and the Spanish Supercup"... or something similar. took your phrase "The club has a tradition..." is this referenced or is this personal opinion? reworded "for high-profile players," instead of "for" these players, do you really mean "signing" these players? per above Any reason why European transfers from club to club are in British pounds? to compare across time. GBP existed since the transfer of Maradona. "23 times during the span, 1901–1940, of the tournament" perhaps "during the entire span of the tournament (1901-1940)". Or maybe "during the 40-year span of the tournament"? last option sixtuple->sextuple. ofcourse "back left to front right" doesn't work for me, what order are the ones in the middle because the front right is fifth. Why not just from left to right? from left to right starting with the back? "however they rarely, if ever, field their first team." needs a reference. removed Under honours, you don't link Madrid and do link Bilbao, why? RM was linked earlier. wl now. Is the plural of Copa del Rey really just Copa del Rey? I think you've asked this before. On here you capped it. FIFA uses a plural s. Is that a better solution? "FC Barcelona is the only European side to have played continental football in every season since its inception in 1955." referenced? And what do you mean by "continental football"? Consider a non-expert reading this. Removed. I only have a management book as source, but user:lafuzion likes to add it, I'll ask him about it. hereof is possibly grammatically correct but reads very strangely in a modern sporting article. "10 of which..." Done "it was their first world cup trophy." be careful here, stick to the same terminology in case someone says that Barca didn't win the World Cup. Done Enough for now, I'll get onto the statistics once you deal with these comments. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] all answered. thanks for review Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (and yes, it's good to see you back)

"various numbers of records" no need for "numbers of"
"have set a record in winning" - set records.
"Since it began playing in regional competitions to the end of the Catalan championship in 1940 they won..." - it->they... reads badly.
"On the domestic level " maybe just "Domestically.."?
"still running" hyphenate if you use this phrase.
"The club has a tradition for high-profile players; paying large transfer fees for some of the most accoladed players" comma, not semicolon.
Maradona should be Diego Maradona in the lead.
And stop repeating "they" here.
"When they paid a record £5 million for Maradona in 1982 they sold him two years later for another record £7 million to Napoli. " no, they didn't get 7 million back "when they paid a record-5m", they got it two years later.
- what do you mean? If they sold him for 5 million and a pound it was still a new transfer record. It's not profit record, just transfer. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He means that it is wrong to say "when they paid....in 1982.....they sold him two years later", that is completely grammatically incorrect. A better wording would be something like "The club paid a record £5 million for Diego Maradona in 1982 and sold him two years later for another record £7 million to Napoli" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh okay. Inserted. Thanks :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The clubs players have received...." club's.
"thereby setting a record number of awards received by clubs." forget this, just say "The club's players have received a record number..."

That's a start, i.e. the lead done. More to come when you've resolved this. Oh, check for hyphens (I've seen a few) instead of en-dashes... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Check all I believe Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"they have set record in winning" records? And perhaps instead of this, "they have won record numbers of both official and unofficial competitions" (although I would question the inclusion of anything considered "unofficial" here without good reason).

Where else to include the Inter-cities fairs cup? Shd it not be mentioned? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Since they began playing in regional competitions to the end of the Catalan championship in 1940 they won a record 23 times out of 38 possible." -> needs a comma after 1940, and what did they win 23/38? "regional competitions"? Finally, would say something more like "they won a record 23 titles from a possible 38."

Done

Domsetically -> typo.

Done

"Copa del Rey and Spanish Supercup of the still-running competitions." wrong way round. Both of these are still-running, so you could say "Domestically the club has a record number of titles in the still-running competitions, namely the Copa del Rey and the Spanish Supercup"... or something similar.

took your phrase

"The club has a tradition..." is this referenced or is this personal opinion?

reworded

"for high-profile players," instead of "for" these players, do you really mean "signing" these players?

per above

Any reason why European transfers from club to club are in British pounds?

to compare across time. GBP existed since the transfer of Maradona.

"23 times during the span, 1901–1940, of the tournament" perhaps "during the entire span of the tournament (1901-1940)". Or maybe "during the 40-year span of the tournament"?

last option

sixtuple->sextuple.

ofcourse

"back left to front right" doesn't work for me, what order are the ones in the middle because the front right is fifth. Why not just from left to right?

from left to right starting with the back?

"however they rarely, if ever, field their first team." needs a reference.

removed

Under honours, you don't link Madrid and do link Bilbao, why?

RM was linked earlier. wl now.

Is the plural of Copa del Rey really just Copa del Rey?

I think you've asked this before. On here you capped it. FIFA uses a plural s. Is that a better solution?

"FC Barcelona is the only European side to have played continental football in every season since its inception in 1955." referenced? And what do you mean by "continental football"? Consider a non-expert reading this.

Removed. I only have a management book as source, but user:lafuzion likes to add it, I'll ask him about it.

hereof is possibly grammatically correct but reads very strangely in a modern sporting article. "10 of which..."

Done

"it was their first world cup trophy." be careful here, stick to the same terminology in case someone says that Barca didn't win the World Cup.

Done

Enough for now, I'll get onto the statistics once you deal with these comments. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all answered. thanks for review Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes The-Sports.org and Soccerlens.com reliable sources? All other refs look good, and nice touch in #43. Not sure why that isn't more commonplace. --W F C-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with LFP and NY Times. Thanks! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : Been trying to find enough time to give this a proper review but it's not going to happen, sorry, so a few quick comments only. The arbitrary nature of the content of records and statistics lists makes them difficult to review quickly

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be consistent about closing year format in seasons. e.g. in La Liga winners, you use a full closing year 1928-1929, whereas in runners-up, you use only the last two digits 1929-30. Either is allowed, per MOS:NUM#Years, but just the last two digits is more generally used with football seasons. of course. shd be consistent now. Also, be consistent about whether or not you have a full stop (period) after each string of seasons ofc. dotted now. If the new Catalan Cup is a reserve-team competition, as per the prose, does it belong in the Regional titles section? Cannot find source so prose is removed. I struggle with the use of italics in the scorelines to denote Barcelona's scores (might be just me) to be honest, bold really works well here. IAR? Some of your scorelines have hyphens rather than endashes found two. Unofficial titles. What is one? For instance, the Fairs Cup trophy playoff isn't a title, it was a game to decide who kept the trophy oh yes that's true. Removed. The Pyrenees cup is not considered a trophy by UEFA/FIFA/LFP, but was the most prestigious tournament in which Barcelona participated until 1920 (Murray, Bill; Murray, William J. p. 30). Also, I'm not comfortable with the inflation adjustment, the British Consumer Price Index doesn't really have any relevance to football transfer fees in Spain. If there were a Football Transfer Index, it'd be another matter Football transfer index? Euro and pesetas are convertible to pounds, so it tells the reader how expensive previous signing where in current time. Copa Eva Duarte. Without any explanation of what it is, 1952 and 1953 don't make sense. ~~And there's no need for the microscopic font size :-)~~ Was given without competition as Barcelona won Spanish Cup and La Liga* better? Still no explanation of what it is: the English reader of a list like this is likely to know what La Liga is, and the Copa del Rey, but less well-known competitions might need explaining I've included a brief description. I don't know whether a footnote wd be more aesthetically pleasing. Friendly competitions. Do pre-season friendlies really belong in a list of "honours"? I'm quite indifferent. What does the people say? The general public has no opinion, so away they go. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] References or notes columns in tables shouldn't be sortable oh of course not. I'm having problems making it unsortable with the current "width=5%" parameter. restrict the overall width. But I'm not sure whether there are better ways of making fixed-width columns: what works on one browser/screensize may not on others. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge might advise Done I believe. What's the source for the top five transfer fees being the top five? This isn't just you, I'm generally uncomfortable with lists of "top" transfer fees, on the basis that most of the time fees are undisclosed anyway. No source. Shd it be "list of transfer fees" removing top? I see all the other Stat pages have the same problem reg. transfers Standards differ, over time, and depending on individual reviewers' attitudes to sourcing. It'd be nice to know why you believe they're the top five, all the same. Ah, okay. Well Ibra and Villa has been mentioned in the world top ten, so those two are pretty certain. I've thought of making a more free list of transfer fee progression, which the man utd list uses, but I cannot find any sources for the earlier transfers (pre 1980). Image captions: full stop (period) after whole sentences, not after fragments I cannot tell the difference. Honest to God. If it's got a verb, it's a sentence. If it hasn't, it's a fragment. "Johan Cruyff is the only Barcelona player to win the Ballon d'Or twice" has a verb, "is", so it's a sentence. "Johan Cruyff, the only Barcelona player to win the Ballon d'Or twice" doesn't have a verb, so it would be a fragment. By that token the three images starting with Valdes shd be dotted, and so they are now. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref #62, the career of Maradona, isn't the BBC, it's h2g2, which is a collaborative project hosted by the BBC, and as such not a reliable source found more respectable ref. from which you've omitted the title :-) titel ->title in parameters :) Overall scorers. What's the source for the top ten? The cited source at the Barca website only has top five, and doesn't have any detail even for those five ~~Oh sorry, seems to be a mix-up, I'll get to it.~~ Couldn't find the original source. I have replaced with a list of top-scorers in Europe (a bit rough, but I'll fix the minor glitches), of which the source is clear that this is the top-scorers. I'd expect a stats and records list to have a top scorers in competitive games section. It's hard to believe that this really can't be sourced, for such a big club included a table with goals scored only. It is manually updated from then (late 2008), is that ok? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Prose in general needs copyediting by a native speaker, but particularly in the Players section Or if you can't find one, have a read of some of it yourself. The first line of the Most official appearances section reads "This is a list of the highest number of officials appearances for the club. ... In the column "Europa" are included all matches in UEFA competitions." Your English is better than that. had a go at copyediting. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Try The "Europe" column includes all matches in UEFA competitions, and the "Others" column includes all ... included. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Most official appearances. What does "official" mean? excluding friendlies. Including all official (FIFA/UEFA/LFP) tournaments. So only competitions "owned" by those organisations are "official"? That's confusing for the English reviewer. But if that's the case, for consistency with that definition, you'd have to move your Fairs Cup titles out of European titles and into Unofficial titles. Why is that confusing? What does the average Brit consider an official tournament? Fairs Cup moved. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's the word "official". When my club entered the Fairs Cup, for instance, they did so officially, put forward by the Birmingham County FA and with the knowledge of the football authorities domestic and international. Towards the end of that competition's existence, teams qualified for it by domestic league position as they do today for the UEFA comps. Just because the current European governing body didn't run it and resented its existence because it took interest away from "their" European Cup, doesn't make it "unofficial". Further, are you sure FC Barcelona makes this definition of official? as far as I can tell, they count the Fairs Cup as the same thing as the UEFA Cup. Certainly on the source you use for the Top scorers in international competitions table, Mr Kocsis has 11 goals in the "UE", and he finished playing 6 years before the UEFA Cup was invented. Strikes me that FC Barcelona's "official" is what the Brits would call "competitive". okay, I see. I've changed the list of trophies to only reflect competitive matches, regardless status with FIFA. I've listed the one they try to have recognized as unofficial. I've changed the wording in most app/goals to competitive. In the references, there are several months called Jule They are now called July Ref #61 has a typo fixed Thanks for the review, ~~I'll get to the rest soon.~~ All should be dealt with Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] One more comment. Many of the La Liga records have a source that says Barcelona got so-many points or scored so-many goals, but no source to say that was a record. Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's from their own list of records but the reviewer in PR found that unacceptable so I tried to supplement with LFP refs, perhaps I've deleted the ref to the record list in the process. So put it back? Sorry, I didn't expect you to reply so quickly, normally it takes a couple of days, I was in the process of going through all of the records again, I should have said so. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yet one more comment. What is the source for the breakdown by competition in the Most official appearances figures? The cited source includes totals only. I've deleted the breakdown. I was certain there was a source, but it appears not. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The list of trophies not-won is in the seasons list :-) Have a look see if List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics#Team records gives you any ideas, that list has best and worst for pretty well everything they include, and the structured layout helps readability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've applied same structure, I believe.

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Can you be consistent about closing year format in seasons. e.g. in La Liga winners, you use a full closing year 1928-1929, whereas in runners-up, you use only the last two digits 1929-30. Either is allowed, per MOS:NUM#Years, but just the last two digits is more generally used with football seasons.

of course. shd be consistent now.

Also, be consistent about whether or not you have a full stop (period) after each string of seasons

ofc. dotted now.

If the new Catalan Cup is a reserve-team competition, as per the prose, does it belong in the Regional titles section?

Cannot find source so prose is removed.

I struggle with the use of italics in the scorelines to denote Barcelona's scores (might be just me)

to be honest, bold really works well here. IAR?

Some of your scorelines have hyphens rather than endashes

found two.

Unofficial titles. What is one? For instance, the Fairs Cup trophy playoff isn't a title, it was a game to decide who kept the trophy

oh yes that's true. Removed. The Pyrenees cup is not considered a trophy by UEFA/FIFA/LFP, but was the most prestigious tournament in which Barcelona participated until 1920 (Murray, Bill; Murray, William J. p. 30).

Also, I'm not comfortable with the inflation adjustment, the British Consumer Price Index doesn't really have any relevance to football transfer fees in Spain. If there were a Football Transfer Index, it'd be another matter

Football transfer index? Euro and pesetas are convertible to pounds, so it tells the reader how expensive previous signing where in current time.

Copa Eva Duarte. Without any explanation of what it is, 1952 and 1953 don't make sense. ~~And there's no need for the microscopic font size :-)~~

Was given without competition as Barcelona won Spanish Cup and La Liga better?

Still no explanation of what it is: the English reader of a list like this is likely to know what La Liga is, and the Copa del Rey, but less well-known competitions might need explaining

I've included a brief description. I don't know whether a footnote wd be more aesthetically pleasing.

Friendly competitions. Do pre-season friendlies really belong in a list of "honours"?

I'm quite indifferent. What does the people say?

The general public has no opinion, so away they go. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References or notes columns in tables shouldn't be sortable

oh of course not. I'm having problems making it unsortable with the current "width=5%" parameter.

restrict the overall width. But I'm not sure whether there are better ways of making fixed-width columns: what works on one browser/screensize may not on others. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge might advise
Done I believe.

What's the source for the top five transfer fees being the top five? This isn't just you, I'm generally uncomfortable with lists of "top" transfer fees, on the basis that most of the time fees are undisclosed anyway.

No source. Shd it be "list of transfer fees" removing top? I see all the other Stat pages have the same problem reg. transfers

Standards differ, over time, and depending on individual reviewers' attitudes to sourcing. It'd be nice to know why you believe they're the top five, all the same.

Ah, okay. Well Ibra and Villa has been mentioned in the world top ten, so those two are pretty certain. I've thought of making a more free list of transfer fee progression, which the man utd list uses, but I cannot find any sources for the earlier transfers (pre 1980).

Image captions: full stop (period) after whole sentences, not after fragments

I cannot tell the difference. Honest to God.

If it's got a verb, it's a sentence. If it hasn't, it's a fragment. "Johan Cruyff is the only Barcelona player to win the Ballon d'Or twice" has a verb, "is", so it's a sentence. "Johan Cruyff, the only Barcelona player to win the Ballon d'Or twice" doesn't have a verb, so it would be a fragment.

By that token the three images starting with Valdes shd be dotted, and so they are now. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #62, the career of Maradona, isn't the BBC, it's h2g2, which is a collaborative project hosted by the BBC, and as such not a reliable source

found more respectable ref.

from which you've omitted the title :-)

titel ->title in parameters :)

Overall scorers. What's the source for the top ten? The cited source at the Barca website only has top five, and doesn't have any detail even for those five

~~Oh sorry, seems to be a mix-up, I'll get to it.~~ Couldn't find the original source. I have replaced with a list of top-scorers in Europe (a bit rough, but I'll fix the minor glitches), of which the source is clear that this is the top-scorers.

I'd expect a stats and records list to have a top scorers in competitive games section. It's hard to believe that this really can't be sourced, for such a big club

included a table with goals scored only. It is manually updated from then (late 2008), is that ok? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose in general needs copyediting by a native speaker, but particularly in the Players section

Or if you can't find one, have a read of some of it yourself. The first line of the Most official appearances section reads "This is a list of the highest number of officials appearances for the club. ... In the column "Europa" are included all matches in UEFA competitions." Your English is better than that.

had a go at copyediting. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try The "Europe" column includes all matches in UEFA competitions, and the "Others" column includes all ...

included. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most official appearances. What does "official" mean?

excluding friendlies. Including all official (FIFA/UEFA/LFP) tournaments.

So only competitions "owned" by those organisations are "official"? That's confusing for the English reviewer. But if that's the case, for consistency with that definition, you'd have to move your Fairs Cup titles out of European titles and into Unofficial titles.

Why is that confusing? What does the average Brit consider an official tournament? Fairs Cup moved. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the word "official". When my club entered the Fairs Cup, for instance, they did so officially, put forward by the Birmingham County FA and with the knowledge of the football authorities domestic and international. Towards the end of that competition's existence, teams qualified for it by domestic league position as they do today for the UEFA comps. Just because the current European governing body didn't run it and resented its existence because it took interest away from "their" European Cup, doesn't make it "unofficial". Further, are you sure FC Barcelona makes this definition of official? as far as I can tell, they count the Fairs Cup as the same thing as the UEFA Cup. Certainly on the source you use for the Top scorers in international competitions table, Mr Kocsis has 11 goals in the "UE", and he finished playing 6 years before the UEFA Cup was invented. Strikes me that FC Barcelona's "official" is what the Brits would call "competitive".

okay, I see. I've changed the list of trophies to only reflect competitive matches, regardless status with FIFA. I've listed the one they try to have recognized as unofficial. I've changed the wording in most app/goals to competitive.

In the references, there are several months called Jule

They are now called July

Ref #61 has a typo

fixed
Thanks for the review, ~~I'll get to the rest soon.~~ All should be dealt with Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment. Many of the La Liga records have a source that says Barcelona got so-many points or scored so-many goals, but no source to say that was a record. Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's from their own list of records but the reviewer in PR found that unacceptable so I tried to supplement with LFP refs, perhaps I've deleted the ref to the record list in the process.
  - So put it back?
    - - Sorry, I didn't expect you to reply so quickly, normally it takes a couple of days, I was in the process of going through all of the records again, I should have said so. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet one more comment. What is the source for the breakdown by competition in the Most official appearances figures? The cited source includes totals only.

I've deleted the breakdown. I was certain there was a source, but it appears not. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of trophies not-won is in the seasons list :-) Have a look see if List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics#Team records gives you any ideas, that list has best and worst for pretty well everything they include, and the structured layout helps readability.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied same structure, I believe.

In the record scores and wins part, there's an awful lot of best wins and winning streaks but not much worst losses and losing streaks

There's also a list of trophies won, but not of how many not-won. :)

I think that longest losing streaks should be provided alongside longest winning streaks, and that longest run without winning should be provided alongside the longest undefeated streaks. This will add context to the achievements, and in nearly all cases. For instance, your Longest unbeaten run at home in League matches is 67 games. Admittedly I'm guessing, but I imagine that the longest winless run at the Nou Camp in La Liga is closer to 6 or 7 games. --W F C-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

longest winless run at Nou Camp is 5 in la liga. longest non-winning away-run 10. both added :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm too busy to give this FLC any more time. It's concerning that I'm still finding tables like the one mentioned above that are basically unsourced. Again, apologies for not being able to complete the job I started. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Dabomb asked me to return, so I have.[reply]

Again I'm sorry, I've should have written I was on it. Thanks for the review so far though! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Where did the losing streaks go?
  - It can be included depending upon the answer to below. I'm not sure whether this is against or within wikipedia policy. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please restore the reference to FC Barcelona's records page to the top of the Team records section. That source is better than none, and some of them still have none. It'd be easy to do if there were any prose in the section. Perhaps a sentence saying "FC Barcelona's team records include the following:" (insert reference here) and hope it really does cover the unsourced ones...
  - Hmm this touches on a delicate subject. Is it reasonable to back up a claim with a finite number of sources? I could of course cite all of the other seasons to prove that the 2002-03 season is the season with lowest point-tally, with 3 points for a win. Wikipedia policy demands verifiability, and it is possible to verify the claim, although its extensive. So is a qoute to the season enough? Should I also note a "access other seasons via the search button" ? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the All-time most appearances table ever had a source for those being the all-time most appearances? If you can't find a better one, use http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/segarra.html
  - used Segarra. I know there exists a better one. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise the All-time overall scorers? neither of the cited sources above that table verify it. Try http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/escola.html . It says Escola was 5th all-time, so if the other four have more goals, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume those are the top five
  - Found better source. Even included the original top-scorers breakdown now. Much better. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~leaning to Weak support.~~ I haven't given this list a full review. It would take too long, given that AFAIK there's no established consensus as to what should be included, and this list doesn't follow the structure of the previously-featured (English club) lists, where I'm well acquainted with what sources exist. It's much better sourced than it was when first reviewed, but even today on my third (fourth?) visit I'm still finding unsourced tables (see above). MoS is fine, structure's adequate. Still bothers me that for a club the size of Barcelona there's apparently no accessible book source for statistical stuff. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry there isn't a book on the subject, but I can't find any. I'll be happy to use it if it exists. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~Weak support You've had two fantastic reviewers above me, so I'll defer to their judgement on the prose. ~~I have a pretty minor concern over whether the list is complete, but~~ I am happy that the information is accurate, reliably sourced, well structured and appropriately illustrated. --W F C-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak support based on Struway's final comments. I do differ with Stru on one point though: I don't think the lack of consensus on football lists in general should be held against this one. Especially given that Sandman has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to try and get consensus over a period of months. --W F C-- 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't hold lack of consensus against the list. I cited lack of consensus about what should be included, which meant I didn't know what I should be looking for, as one reason why it would take too long to give it a thorough review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ – Too many grammatical errors for my taste. A lot of them are in table lead-ins, where they are easy to miss, but they should still be resolved if this is to be promoted. The financial figures in the lead ($5 million and $7 million) should have non-breaking spaces in them; I included examples of the formatting here. Done. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Honours: "10 of which in official UEFA competitions." "in" → "were" or "came in".~~ were ~~"having failed to do so on two previous occasions". The only time they participated in the Club World Cup that I can see was 2006.~~ they also participated in the 1992 intercontinental cup Is that the same event though? Our article on the Club World Cup is somewhat unclear. It says the tournament was first held in 2000, although it was apparently supposed to succeed the older Intercontinental Cup. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I cannot find many sources that discus the history of FCWC, but "club+world+cup"&hl=en&ei=AOxkTMWOOJHb4gbaqoTRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=fifa%20%22club%20world%20cup%22&f=false this book does equalize FCWC with intercontinental cup. Mourinho also recently said that even though Benitez shd win the intercontinental cup it wd be his trophy. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Club World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup are completely separate competitions. First, the two competitions ran in tandem in the 1999-2000 season; and second, one is run by FIFA, the other was not. The closest the Club World Cup comes to being the successor to the Intercontinental Cup is to say that it is the Intercontinental Cup's "spiritual successor", but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the actual history of the two competitions. – Pee Jay 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay sentence changed. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~In the photo caption "Barcelonas 1952 Latin Cup", it should be "Barcelona's".~~ done ~~In Unofficial titles, spell out RFEF.~~ done ~~It now reads, "after the Royal Spanish Football Federation is considering...". "after" makes it sound like this has already happened. Is that the case or is this still ongoing?~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] re-written and updated. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Players: "was one of the club's first football players ~~the club had~~...". Glaring redundancy in the prose.~~ done ~~"This makes it the club with most FIFA World Player awards received by the players." Add "the" before "most".~~ the added ~~Most official appearances: "officials" should be "official".~~ Done ~~All-time most appearances: Add another "the" before "most appearances" in the prose? There's a similar issue in All-time overall scorers.~~ 2x the added ~~Topscorers scorers in all competitions: Title is a little funky.~~ -scorers, split topscorers ~~"This list all topscorers in competitive matches." "list" → "lists".~~ added s ~~Transfer fee received: "This list transfer fees received by Barcelona." Similar issue to the last one. The next section has another similar flaw.~~ added s in both ~~Space needed after reference 39.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ – Too many grammatical errors for my taste. A lot of them are in table lead-ins, where they are easy to miss, but they should still be resolved if this is to be promoted.

The financial figures in the lead ($5 million and $7 million) should have non-breaking spaces in them; I included examples of the formatting here.
- Done. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Honours: "10 of which in official UEFA competitions." "in" → "were" or "came in".~~
- were
~~"having failed to do so on two previous occasions". The only time they participated in the Club World Cup that I can see was 2006.~~
- they also participated in the 1992 intercontinental cup
  - Is that the same event though? Our article on the Club World Cup is somewhat unclear. It says the tournament was first held in 2000, although it was apparently supposed to succeed the older Intercontinental Cup. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cannot find many sources that discus the history of FCWC, but "club+world+cup"&hl=en&ei=AOxkTMWOOJHb4gbaqoTRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=fifa%20%22club%20world%20cup%22&f=false this book does equalize FCWC with intercontinental cup. Mourinho also recently said that even though Benitez shd win the intercontinental cup it wd be his trophy. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Club World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup are completely separate competitions. First, the two competitions ran in tandem in the 1999-2000 season; and second, one is run by FIFA, the other was not. The closest the Club World Cup comes to being the successor to the Intercontinental Cup is to say that it is the Intercontinental Cup's "spiritual successor", but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the actual history of the two competitions. – Pee Jay 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay sentence changed. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~In the photo caption "Barcelonas 1952 Latin Cup", it should be "Barcelona's".~~
- done
~~In Unofficial titles, spell out RFEF.~~
- done
  - ~~It now reads, "after the Royal Spanish Football Federation is considering...". "after" makes it sound like this has already happened. Is that the case or is this still ongoing?~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - re-written and updated. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Players: "was one of the club's first football players ~~the club had~~...". Glaring redundancy in the prose.~~
- done
~~"This makes it the club with most FIFA World Player awards received by the players." Add "the" before "most".~~
- the added
~~Most official appearances: "officials" should be "official".~~
- Done

~~All-time most appearances: Add another "the" before "most appearances" in the prose? There's a similar issue in All-time overall scorers.~~
- 2x the added
~~Topscorers scorers in all competitions: Title is a little funky.~~
- -scorers, split topscorers
~~"This list all topscorers in competitive matches." "list" → "lists".~~
- added s
~~Transfer fee received: "This list transfer fees received by Barcelona." Similar issue to the last one. The next section has another similar flaw.~~
- added s in both
~~Space needed after reference 39.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of article should only be applied to the greatest 10 or so greatest clubs in the world in any given sport. Barcelona is indeed one of them, this could be a good "bet". I vote for promotion. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Congratulations for the good job done. I had a look and the article seems properly structured and cited.--Jordiferrer (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and copyedits, much appreciated. Looks like I'll soon be done with this process, only one list left :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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