List of Ipswich Town F.C. Players of the Year

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the very recently promoted List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year, and not to be outdone by my country cousins, I humbly submit my paltry offering to the scrutiny of the community. I would appreciate all comments, support or otherwise, and, as always, many thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support I'll support; the article fulfils the criteria and is very detailed. Only issues I have are:

Simon Milton links to a politician not the footballer.
- Tsk, silly me. Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Caps" perhaps should be "International caps", I know it's obvious to people familiar with football but it might would worth changing for clarity.
- Clarified. The Rambling Man 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dave101→talk 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Comment~~ Some comments.

Alan Brazil is Scottish, not English (or Brazilian..).
- Duh. Fixed. The Rambling Man 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matt Holland is given as Irish for one, but English for the other.
- Duh x 2, fixed. The Rambling Man 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For consistency, Yallop should have a note saying he was born in England.
- You learn something every day. Fixed. The Rambling Man 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good. Seems as if there's a pattern emerging with these articles.. Mattythewhite 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Changed made. Good job. Mattythewhite 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved stuff from Struway2

~~Comment~~

You have two 1986s.
- Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man 09:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Voting mechanism is much too short to justify a section of its own. Also, the wording of the main lead para reads a bit awkwardly. I've taken the liberty of having a go at copyediting it in my Sandbox, if you'd like to have a look.
- I'll have a look... The Rambling Man 09:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Fixed. The Rambling Man 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The summary tables would look tidier if you lost the fixed widths and centred the numbers, so, for instance, Northern Ireland would fit on one line, and the numbers wouldn't be crammed up to the left of an unnecessarily wide column. Have a look here to see what I mean.
- Again, I'll check it out, thanks. The Rambling Man 09:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Fixed. The Rambling Man 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hope some of this helps, Struway2 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it was of great help, thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues above all dealt with, just a couple more things.

John Wark's record four wins should surely get a mention in the lead.
- Yes, done. The Rambling Man 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The note in the Summary by position table against Forward says "Includes strikers and wingers." Your list doesn't really go back to the days when outside rights and lefts did count as forwards, and I'd have thought that nowadays winger was considered a midfield position? Struway2 11:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note was a remnant from NCFC POTY. Now removed. The Rambling Man 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support all issues dealt with promptly and satisfactorily, good work. Struway2 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Placeholder comment pending further review and (possibly daft) issues raised currently at list talk page. --Dweller 12:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Admirable. --Dweller 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I can't see anything out of place. I think it meets all the criteria. I have one slight problem with the lead although this is purely stylistic. This sentence troubles me: Since the inaugural award was made to and retained by Kevin Beattie, two other players have won the award twice, Terry Butcher, and most recently Matt Holland in 1998 and 2003 while John Wark has been presented with the award on a record four occasions. If you say only two people have won it twice, it is a bit misleading, as John Wark also won it twice. Could it not be something like: Since the inaugural award was made to and retained by Kevin Beattie, two other players have won the award twice, Terry Butcher, and most recently Matt Holland in 1998 and 2003. John Wark has been presented with the award on a record four occasions. This still seems a bit misleading but it avoids the run-on sentence. Woodym555 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Woody. I've completely rephrased to avoid misleading folks... The Rambling Man 15:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks perfect. Completely support now. Well done as always. Woodym555 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Another great list. Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
- I don't think the links in "position" are that necessary. There's only 4 positions, after all...
  - Well, since the list is sortable the links are made in every row so that no matter in what order the table is displayed, the first instances of each position are still wiki-linked. The Rambling Man 07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Given that there are exactly 4 positions, I absolutely fail to see how it is supposed to be helpful to link every instance. Circeus 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Again, it's conventional to wikilink the first instance of each position, and because the table is sortable on any of the headings then any of the positions could be listed first. So that's why they're all wiki-linked. I'm not sure I see why it's such a big deal but there you go. The Rambling Man 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I really dislikes the way "notes" has both notes and references: Wat are those references sourcing?? Why is the John Wark note repeated if there's only one contextual note??
  - I actually like the notes and references are together, it makes it more obvious - the links to external sites clearly relate to the notes they are next to. Again, because the table is sortable, the Wark ref needs to be repeated each time so that it makes no difference which order the table is displayed, the first time the reader gets to Wark the notes will be available to him. The Rambling Man 07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circeus 04:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]