• Is it "the Combination" or "The Combination"?
• Same with the Football League. (later on you don't link the in "the Conference National", so all I'm saying is you should be consistent with linking and capitalisation).
  • Answering both points here. I'd say it's lower-case "the", because it's just fulfilling its normal grammatical function. It's arguable that the Football League might have a capital T for the most recent couple of years of its existence, since it branded itself explicitly as The Football League®, but any such marketing-driven capitalisation would in general be anachronistic. In the 1920s, The Times referred to Arsenal as The Arsenal, capital T even in mid-sentence, but the Football League had lower-case t, even when specifically discussing them as an organisation re their AGM.
  • As to linking, I've linked whatever the article's called, to avoid messy piping, [[the Combination]] rather than the [[The Combination|Combination]] So the Combination but Football Alliance. If that's wrong, I'll change them.
• "and joined the Football Alliance, and the following year were " being picky, it's a bit too much of a run-on for me... and and ....
  • and joined the Football Alliance; the following year they were "
• "or (in 1912) the " wouldn't bother with the parentheses.
  • changed to commas, didn't look right with nothing
• "In 1921–22 Lincoln were founder member..." never like the idea of being "In" a range of years.
  • It probably originally read "In the 1921-22 season", and I cut it for repetition without reading it back; changed to In 1921
• "On regaining Second Division status three years later they remained in the division until the 1960–61 season, then suffering consecutive relegations" suffered?
  • indeed
• I'd personally like to see the key before the table, for instance I have no idea what the italics mean in 1888-89 until I get much further into the article.
  • moved
• 1885-86 has an en-dash for top scorer and a blank cell for the number of goals, 39/40 and 45/46 just have blank cells..
  • Well spotted... Added the info for 45/46 (another redlink player), don't know why I hadn't done it in the first place. For 39/40, expanded the note about the league abandonment to mention apps/goals not being included in player stats, and linked the note from the top scorer column as well as the league position
• I love the up and down arrows, a great addition to these seasons articles.
  • ta :-)
• Should Top scorer be Top scorer(s)?
  • yes
• I find it hard to believe that Lormor doesn't even have a stub!
  • I was disappointed to find he hadn't...
• ref 18 seems to have a spare full stop. Probably a template issue...
  • fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the helpful review, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've linked group stage, but the others are plain English words so shouldn't really need linking
• "Appearances and goals from those three matches are not normally included in players' career records." Is that OR?
  • No: there's even a book about the 1939/40 non-appearances, nicely entitled The Men Who Never Were, the blurb for which says "Many clubs had newly signed players on duty. With the declaration of war on September 2nd the official League programme came to an end and the records of the three matches were expunged from the records. Therefore, many of the new players do not appear in a club’s official records."
    • why the qualifying normally then, and why not add above as source? Sandman888 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to "normally": some statisticians do include them, so it'd be dishonest to omit the qualification. As to using the blurb as a source: not having access to a copy of the book, I couldn't argue for the publisher's blurb being a reliable reflection of the content (even if it is). However, The Times archive does give scorers' names for the first three matches of the 1939/40 season, so I've added the top scorer to the 1939/40 row on the list, italicised as part of the incomplete season. I've also reworded the note to indicate that Lincoln City don't include appearances and goals from the abandoned season in their official records, with reference to two sources for Walter Ponting's league stats (the LCFC Archive which doesn't include them, and Joyce's book which does) to illustrate the difference. Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• there's room for some images on the right of the table, if possible.
  • Even at 1024px width, a thumbnail image sits above the table with lots of white space to its left. But even if there was enough width, free images of genuine season highlights are few and far between, even for bigger clubs than Lincoln City. I did look on flickr to see if there was anything usable from their many playoff appearances, but couldn't find anything. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "League results shown in italics for abandoned or wartime competitions." - only one row is in italics, so why not make it clear which it is? Sandman888 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three rows in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only see 1888-89 of league results. Sandman888 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War." and "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War.". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that's not a result. And the text itself need no further explaining so "League result shown in italics for abandoned competitions." wd do fine. Sandman888 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this a little picky to be honest. The result of the league those seasons is that it was abandoned because of war. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two league rows in italics: 1888/89 and 1939/40. As the various wartime competitions are not included in this list, the words "or wartime" are unnecessary so I've removed them. Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]