Wikipedia:Featured article review/Premier League/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 14:13, 24 November 2010 [1].

Premier League[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: PeeJay2K3, HonorTheKing, Woody, Oldelpaso, CambridgeBayWeather, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is almost three years since its last review and I feel that it needs one to ensure that it is still of a suitably high standard. There are a number of issues with the article that I believe may compromise its FA status:

  • The Establishment section is off-topic. It discusses the first season but then drifts off into a discussion of potential changes to the number of teams in the league (I raised this on the article talk page but no one has responded);
  • The information on the European Club Forum is out of date (again, I raised this on the talk page but it wasn't addressed);
  • There are many unreferenced statements in the article, such as "The Premier League's gross revenue is the fourth highest of any sports league worldwide", which could really do with sources. Others, such as "the average revenues of the 20 Premier League teams are thought to be close to those of the 30-team NBA" beg the question "thought by whom?";
  • There are two "citation needed" tags in the article text;
  • There are a number of stylistic problems, such as use of the % symbol instead of "per cent" in the prose. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The European Club Forum issue has now been resolved thanks to Woody. That said, it could still be improved by specifying the actual number of clubs that represent the Premier League at the European Club Association. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that in now with a ref (and fixed our page which was incorrect). Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, could you take another look and add any citation needed tags to sentences you think need supporting? I think the vast majority of any remaining unsourced statements would not be reasonably contested. Could you expand on the specific stylistic problems please (and any links to MOSNUM as appropriate if possible?) Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Cordless Larry
I've now tagged facts that I think need references. There are quite a few, so if you disagree with any of them, please feel free to object! I've replaced "%" with "per cent", as per WP:MOSNUM. I've also noticed that there is a dead link in the references and that a number of references are either incomplete or poorly/inconsistently formatted. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the Influence on the global game section only seems to cover Nigeria! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it completely, the article said that the link was not fully supported and it was only one article that suggested it. I couldn't actually see where it says that in MOSNUM but I'm not really bothered either way. I will take a look at the refs now. Woody (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSNUM states: "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, I didn't see MOSNUM mandates you to use percent in the article text. As I said earlier, not really bothered either way. Woody (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't, no, but it suggests that it's a convention and I think it looks better in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have tackled all of the citation needed tags that were in the article. I also had a bit of a run through the references and tackled the uniformity issues. Any outstanding issues? Woody (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this. Generally, I think we're getting there, although I still think there are problems with the references. There's still one dead link, and there seems to be inconsistency about when the "publisher" and "work" fields are used. We have BBC as both publisher and work in different references, and newspapers seem to mainly be listed using publisher, not work. I'm also not sure if it was a good idea to reduce "BBC Sport" and "BBC News" to simply "BBC". I think the former looks better and more clearly differentiates between sports and general-interest news items. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that dead link yesterday. Arbero 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure why, but it still had a dead link tag next to it for me, but it seems to be fixed now. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One dead link appeared a day after I had used it, I think they are all archived adequately now. I really don't think there needs to be a differentiation between the BBC items but I have had a run through the article anyway to clear up the work/publisher issue. Does that assuage your concerns? Woody (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few more edits to the references and I think they look much better now. I wouldn't mind someone with more expertise with FARs looking into the article though. We also still need to find a solution for the establishment section. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed to Development and some text moved. Woody (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some further issues that need be be dealt with:

  • I've just spotted that the Worldwide section of the article does not discuss the 2009 Barclays Asia Trophy, despite listing previous years' events. I was going to add a short description but then I wondered whether a description of this event actually belongs in a section that is supposed to be about media coverage.
  • Stripped it down to a simple summary of the trophy. Woody (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Qualification for European competitions section includes the lines: "The Premier League was recently promoted to the top of the UEFA rankings of European leagues based on their performances in European competitions over a five-year period. This broke the eight-year dominance of the Spanish league, La Liga". It's not clear when "recently" is in this context, and the access date for the reference is 17 May 2008. The reference also doesn't seem to verify the eight-year statement about La Liga. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked to become future-proof, added new ref. Woody (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Corporate structure section could perhaps also do with more detail. It mentions a chairman and chief executive, for instance, but does not state who currently holds these positions or how many people have held them since the foundation of the league. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added details of the current chairman and chief executive. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Media coverage section states: "The Premier League sells its television rights on a collective basis. This is in contrast to some European Leagues, including Serie A and La Liga, in which each club sells its rights individually, leading to a much higher share of the total income going to the top few clubs". This could probably do with a reference. In looking for one, I found this source, which says that Serie A has returned to a collective television rights system, so I'm going to remove it as an example. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference for comparison with La Liga now found and added. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit conflict regarding Owen Coyle also needs to be resolved. I've started a discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that I'm not sure about the use of the "work" field in citations to list a government department. Following this discussion, I'm happy to go with whatever other editors agree on, but I find it odd that Home Office, for instance, is italicised in the references as if it were a book. I think a better solution would be to list Home Office as the publisher. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Copied discussion With regards to this diff and the many others I think you are wrong. Those work fields are perfectly acceptable and provide further information that would be of use to readers. I had gone through the refs as a result of reading through this discussion. Where is the discussion that says they are wrong? or could you explain your reasoning to me? I am now just getting rather frustrated with the endless tweaking of refs which are clogging up the edit history. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web states that use of the "work" field is for the following: "If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work". I don't see how "HM Government" or something along those lines counts as a work by this definition. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my edit, you'll also see that the fields were being used inconsistently. For example, one reference included "publisher=HM Courts Service|work=HM Government", while another used "work=Office of Fair Trading|publisher=HM Government". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make it consistent then, don't remove it, or tell me and I will fix it. If we take the example from the aforementioned discussion: *{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty |title=Han Dynasty|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation, Inc}} This scales particularly well to Government publications from smaller Government departments. The work is OFT, the publisher is the Government. Woody (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the OFT, for instance, to be the publisher, and the OFT to be part of HM Government. I don't really see the need to list the latter as the publisher, and I don't accept that a government department is a "work". But feel free to revert my edits. It's up to whoever completes the FAR to decide whether the fields are being used correctly, at the end of the day. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused as well although reading that discussion clarified things for me. I have reinstated them now in a consistent manner. It is not for whoever completes (do you mean the FAR directors?) the FAR to decide MOS or stylistic issues, they don't have a better understanding than anyone else. They are simply there to determine consensus amongst reviewers/editors. Good point actually, I will copy this over to the FAR now. Woody (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that they go on consensus. What I was trying to say was that I didn't want to impose my view of how the references should be formatted, but wanted to leave it to consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think that there might be a problem with one of your links above, which is displaying as {{cite web }} but which I think you might have intended as a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link. Fair enough on the closure, I must have misinterpreted your understanding. It was your referrals to the "whoever completes," I took that to be the FAR director, my mistake. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it was my fault for not being clear. I'm just not that experienced with FAR discussions and would like to get input from those with more experience rather than trying to suggest that whatever I say is correct on this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-->End of copied discussion.

The issue as it stands is that I have now reinstated the work field into Governmental references. They now have work=Home Office |publisher=HM Government instead of the Home Office in the publisher field. Due to my interpretation of the guidelines and simply for the sake of completeness I think it is the correct form. That said, this is the tiniest of stylistics differences, the content seems to have left discussion so that seems to be pretty sorted now. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I have fixed the remainder of your new issues. Could we possibly use a hide template to hide the resolved issues? The little issues are beginning to clog up the page? Thanks, Woody (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've employed a hide template. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved a few bits around to make clear the different contributors and issues. Feel free to revert me if you feel I have misrepresented anything. In terms of your initial issues, do they still remain, MOS for example? Thanks, Woody (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my initial concerns have now been dealt with. My remaining concerns are about coverage issues. I would prefer input from other editors on this issue, but I think that the article could do with a general expansion. Take the Criticisms section, for example. The article only really discusses two broad criticisms: the dominance of the "big four" and the gap with lower leagues. I'm sure that more can be said here. What about allegations of refereeing bias, or claims about the impact of the Premier League on the England national team for starters? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you strike those that are resolved please (or hide them?) Makes it clearer what is left to do. In terms of the article, my opinion is that it covers the issues as much as it can in an article of this size per WP:SUMMARY. It is already a large article that covers everything succintly. Allegations of refereeing bias are nothing new and are in every aspect of pretty much every sport. If you can find a good source, not pub chat between newspaper columnists that does a detailed study of decisions then so be it. The same could be said for the England national team, there aren't studies that look into the effect of the Premier League on the fortunes of the three lions. The issues you mention would be equally applicable to all top-flight football across Europe and not specific to the Premier League. Simply put, I disagree on the importance and relevance for this article. Woody (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out my initial concerns, which have now been resolved. Refereeing bias has indeed been addressed in a detailed study, which received coverage in, amongst other sources, The Times and The Guardian. That said, the current contents of the criticism section don't seem to be based on statistical studies, so I don't see how the existence of the latter is a condition of inclusion. That the criticisms have been made by a significant number of people is surely enough to note that they exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lede/intro seems a bit short with regards to comprehensiveness - per WP:LEAD, should fully be able to function as a stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents, should probably be expanded upon a bit more. Unsourced chunks throughout article body text, and multiple sourcing issues. Concerns over short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs, as well as a few ultra-short-subsections - these should probably be expanded upon, or merged. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought this needed a bit of a routine check-up for a while now, this review was probably needed about now. I have done quite a bit of work on it in the past couple of hours, mainly trimming and fixing some sourcing issues which should remedy Cirt's structural objections. Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relegate the Premier League, if only so that the Americans can go back to uncontroversially claiming that they have the biggest sports league in the world ;) Seriously though, in terms of structure, comprehensiveness of the body, and the quality of sourcing that is actually there, the article isn't in bad shape, but I agree with the issues raised above. Should be save-able. --WFC-- 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text for the images in the article needs to be set. Please see this report on the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT text is no longer required for featured articles. The editors may add it if they wish, but it is not necessary for the article to retain featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for letting me know. Last I knew, it was a requirement so I'm obviously behind! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are sources and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yellowmonkey, where are the sources issues above, they all seem resolved to me, and what are the specific comprehensiveness issues, what can be added to the article? Woody (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woody, YM (and I, when I move articles here) just list any and all issues that were brought up during the FAR. This does not mean that the issues are still present or that we agree they were a problem in the first place. The best thing to do would probably be to ping anyone who commented above and ask them to return and either list more comments or state that they think the article is ready to be kept as an FA. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To perhaps anticipate such a question, I stand by my comments on coverage (particularly regarding criticisms of the Premier League) but would like other people to comment on this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where else but your opinion on criticism do you have concerns on coverage? This is a large article that covers all the salient points in my opinion. We could not possibly list every criticism of the Premier League nor could we have a list of every positive thing about the premier league. If you have a list of anything you thing is missing, please add it here and we could discuss it. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've outlined two criticisms that aren't mentioned in the article above. Perhaps the refereeing bias one is the more marginal of the two, but I think the impact of the Premier League on the England national team merits mention. There are plenty of sources, such as this and this. Again, I'd welcome input from other editors on this because I don't want to be the one alone who effectively determines whether the article is delisted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say you have concerns on coverage, particularly suggesting that you have further concerns: do you? I stand by my opinion that it covers everything it could be reasonably expected to in this article. The academic article says that referees can be biased towards home teams, that is something that is not unique to the Premier League, it is a football-wide issue that uses the Premier League as a sample. It is not a criticism of the Premier League as an entity. In terms of the England team, I will look into getting some sources and writing a little bit on it. Woody (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. In the context of the impact on the England team issue, I was going to suggest adding material on the number of foreign players in the league, but I see that this is covered under Squad and transfer regulations. The statistics could do with updating if more recent ones are available, and perhaps that section is not the most obvious place for this material. In fact, the section only seems to cover issues relating to foreign players, whereas the heading "Squad and transfer regulations" suggests it should cover other regulations. Other than that, I don't really have any other concerns about coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the English-fa-premier-league image as redundant and added Fair Use rationales for the trophy image. I suggest you nominate it for deletion on commons if you think the trophy does not meet the threshold of originality. Woody (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the trophy image with a different one. Both elcobbola's points have thus been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Few bits of suggested cleanup here and there...

  • No need for two Football League links in the lead.
  • The full version of UEFA should be given in the lead, with the abbreviated version in parentheses.
  • Development: Another abbreviation needs a full version, this time FIFA.
  • Qualification for European competitions: Remove the comma after Michel Platini or add another one before. The one is a bit awkward to read through, at least for me.
  • Media coverage: Again multiple links to something in a section; Setanta Sports doesn't need the second one.
  • A few of the seasons mentioned toward the end of the section have slashes. I'm pretty sure the MoS discourages these; en dashes would work well for those.
  • Worldwide: "In Australia, Fox Sports (Australia)". Can you pipe the link so the second Australia (quite redundant) doesn't show up in the text?
  • Criticisms: "The benefits of qualification ... is believed to have widened the gap between the Big Four clubs and the rest of the Premier League." "is" → "are".
  • Remove excess period after reference 68. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done thanks though I do think the UEFA/FIFA expansions are awkward, particularly as they are both known by their acronyms than by their full titles. The wikilinks serve as the ability to acquire the full titles in my opinion but I have done them anyway. See what you think. Woody (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

  • The prose at the start of the managers section is a little brief. I'm not necessarily saying all of these things are good ideas, but they might help expand the paragraph:
    • It's probably starting with a sentence or two on what a manager actually does. In certain parts of the world "manager" would be understood as the general manager, i.e. someone who has very little to do with the day-to-day running of the team.
    • Perhaps something on caretakers?
    • Longest serving and most recently appointed?
    • I would say average length of service, but given the difficulty in sourcing and Alex Ferguson's longevity that probably won't be possible.
  • The note below the managers table shouldn't really be plain text, as it's not part of the article prose.
  • Also, maybe there's scope for an image or two alongside the table?
  • File:Champions 2004-5.jpg is probably a better depiction of the trophy.

Nice work in bringing this article towards 2010 standards. Regards, —WFC— 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a bit of a blurb for the managers, added what they do, what licenses they need, added caretakers and longest serving (already there)/recent appointment. Average length of service is constantly changing and there aren't any sources for average length throughout the history of the league. The flags and note were only added today, I have tidied it up, indented and used italics. Image of Ferguson added and swapped the trophy image. Thanks for your review. Woody (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asked to revisit here. Woody (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • Why are combined club revenues measured in Euros? Sterling doesn't appear to be a problem elsewhere in the article.
  • The table says that Wenger was appointed in 1996, the prose 1997.
  • The 10 seasons awards should make clearer that the statistics are only correct as of the end of the 2002–03 season.
  • On that note, supplimentary prose should be provided where the July 2010 figure is different to the July 2003 figure. For instance, David James had the most clean sheets as of the end of the 2009–10 season (and the most appearances), Shearer scored another 50 or so goals before retiring, and Ferguson has another seven seasons' worth of games in charge. I see a couple of follow-on sentences as preferable to a dedicated records and statistics section, because the Premier League themselves have decided which milestones are truly significant with these awards.

Once these small things are dealt with, I'll be close to feeling that the article to be kept. Regards, —WFC— 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Euros are better for those figures as the figures are used to show the comparison with world football leagues, the vast majority of the competing leagues are in the Eurozone and the source figure was in Euros. Fixed the Arsene contradiction. I have added a note about the stats being accurate for the 10 seasons award and not for current data. All of the updated figures are reflected in the prose or in tables, and either way, I don't think our readers will expect the figures to be up to date. I think the fact that these awards are for "10 seasons" and in a 10 seasons section would suggest they don't reflect current stats. Woody (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source that uses Sterling would be easy to obtain. Given that the article doesn't make a figure-to-figure comparison with any other league at any point, internal consistency is surely the order of the day. As for the ten seasons award, you make a valid point on the statistics. But in the absence of a dedicated records section I think it's important to at the very least make explicit when record holders have changed. It is misleading to denote Seaman as the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets, with no further qualification. —WFC— 22:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is misleading to say that Seaman was awarded the 10 season award for clean sheets, which is what the article says. I think we are doing a disservice to our readers if we think they see that to mean that Seaman is still the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets. It is a finite statistic, relevant only at the time of the awards and not relevant to any current statistics. As such, in my opinion, it doesn't need to be made explicit. Woody (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But given that it's not a relevant statistic, it should either be accompanied by the relevant one, or alternatively not be expressed in statistical form at all. —WFC— 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is relevant, relevant for those awards, which recognised a milestone in the history of the Premier League. As I stated earlier and Mick seems to be stating, I really don't see anyone being confused, at all. Woody (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to add a note about the 10 seasons stats, the context is clear as day for anyone who reads the section from the start, which is a perfectly normal expectation in a serious encyclopoedia. No reader has ever brought up any confusion they had with it, or tried to change the figure, since the section was added,nearly a year ago now. MickMacNee (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The flags next to the managers' names are back, and with them the Owen Coyle nationality issue, as discussed here. As I've stated before, I don't think we should be using the FIFA eligibility rules (which apply to players) to decide on managers' nationalities. Coyle identifies as Scottish, even if he played for Ireland. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. There is a distinction between players and managers in this regard. —WFC— 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What recognised system would you use then? The FIFA recognisation is a universal one which is why it is used, either we have another system or remove them. I don't mind which one of those you choose, frankly I don't care about them. Woody (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about just plain old nationality? Coyle is verifiably a Scotsman by any means you care to use, except this sort of absolute Wiki-wonkery. To call him Irish without concrete proof of such, and in contradiction to all other sources, is a clear BLP violation. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point is how do you define plain old nationality: Where they live now, where they were born, the country they play football for? (The same person could have three different answers) As I said, if you feel strongly about it, then be bold and change the system used, or bring it up on the talkpage. I am incredibly ambivalent about it, and speaking of wiki-wonkery, citing BLP is a bit disingenuous. Woody (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't be dense. Nationality is nationality, and BLP is more than relevant in a case like this, where umpteen reliable sources are being shit all over for the purposes of wiki-wonkery. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is asking you how you define nationality being dense? My main interest on Wikipedia is Milhist where the issue of nationality is an incredibly complex one, with entirely different notions of nationality depending ont he context. You are the one being annoyingly dense in that you aren't responding to my reasonable question and replying with some wiki-wonkery... Woody (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is no wiki-wonkery in my answer. Nationality is nationality. Nobody at the Passport Office gives a flying toss about the Wikipedia MilHist project. No relibable source gives a flying toss about the Wikipedia MilHist project infact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think the problem here is that MickMacNee understands nationality to be equivalent to citizenship, whereas Woody is using a wider definition. Citizenship is obviously a more objective criteria, although it gets complicated with dual citizenship, but if we have a reliable source (which we do in Coyle's case) I don't see why we can't rely a person's self-identification. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • As I said, do what you want with it as long as it is consistent. Woody (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)amended Woody (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A further issue that might need to be addressed is that of the Premier League's TV audience in China, as raised here. Whatever people think of that discussion, the age of the source currently being used is a problem if you ask me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't really see the issue with that one, someone has stated that from their personal experience speaking to people in a certain area of China, that the sourced figure we use is not congruous with his experience. It would be helpful if we had a new source, but as it is, it is not inaccurate. Woody (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not inaccurate in and of itself, but perhaps we could state in the text when it refers to because using the present tense is inaccurate. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies, I seem to have completely missed your reply somehow. I have amended the sentence now to add in "data from 2003 suggests..." Woody (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is work on this going? Dana boomer (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Cordless Larry is happy with my latest edit I don't see anything outstanding. The flag issue seems to have settled down again and the main agitators seem to be content therefore so am I. Woody (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the addition of a date to the Chinese TV market statistics, although if anyone can find a more up-to-date source, that would be even better. Looking through my earlier comments, the only one that still stands out is the use of the "work" field in references to denote government departments. Unfortunely only Woody and I have commented on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a minor stylistic difference and a personal preference, not something that should hold up this FAR in my opinion. Woody (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS review needed, see my sample edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, can I query this edit? Changing "2007-present" to "2007-2010" makes it sound as if the sponsorship agreement ends this year, when it doesn't. Is there a better way we can present this? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOSDATE doesn't actually deal with this situation. As it is now, 2007-2010, we wil have to do more updating to that text than we would with 2007-present. Every New Year's Day we will have to update it to the next year. The contract runs to the end of 2012-13 so we could put 2013, that would be more accurate though we don't know what might happen in the meantime. (In other words, not actually sure what should go there, but prefer what was there originally.) Woody (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, I had a run-through and couldn't actually find many repeats throughout the text of the issues you highlighted. Most of yours happened in the Sponsorship section, there was an edit made a few weeks ago that I didn't notice that reintroduced some errors I had already fixed. That said, I have always had a somewhat different opinion of "overlinking" than some of my peers. Woody (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust you all to work out the date situation, revert me as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead, it seems the least worst option to me. Woody (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Could somebody review the overlinking? I see clubs like Manchester United linked several times, especially in the "Premier League champions" table.
  • Fair comment, I have gone through and had a bit of a rationalisation of linking of team names, I have left them in most tables though for uniformity within those tables. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the list of current managers is necessary. I removed the table, but was reverted.
  • Open up a discussion on the talkpage about that if you want, or see the previous ones. I have come around to that table and I do think it is a useful aid that adds information, rather than being superfluous, though I accept there is another, albeit slightly less accessible, table over at Premier League managers article. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "10 Seasons Awards" sub-section seems overly detailed, considering that it has its own article. Also this is only one of many awards conferred to PL players and clubs, so why the emphasis?
  • No answer to that one, I would be happy removing it. I suspect another editor might disagree. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll start talk-page threads on the managers table and the awards section some time.—indopug (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, why is Champions League and Europa League listed under League cup(s)?
  • Don't know, so removed. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I missed it in the article, but nowhere is it discussed how (and when and why) the Premier League cut down from 22 teams in its first few seasons to the 20 teams it is today. This is AFAIK the only glaring ommission in the article.
  • I think you missed it in Premier_League#Development: Due to insistence by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the international governing body of football, that domestic leagues reduce the number of games clubs played, the number of clubs was reduced to 20 in 1995 when four teams were relegated from the league and only two teams promoted. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh! "when four teams were relegated from the league and only two teams promoted."—but there's been no mention till then that normally three teams are relegated, and three promoted.—indopug (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I have added a note about this into the foundation section where it talks about retaining the same rules as the previous 1st division. Woody (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "Of the 44 clubs to have competed since the inception of the Premier League in 1992". Body: "A total of 43 clubs have played in the Premier League from its inception in 1992 and the end of the 2009–10 season.".—indopug (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky one. We tend to leave updating statistics until the end of the season, which is why it has the qualifier "the end of the 2009-10 season". In the 2010-11 season (current one) we have Blackpool playing in the league but it hasn't finished yet, so saying "the end of the 2010-11 season" would be a bit odd given we are not there yet. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we could reword it "up to and including the 2010-11 season"? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—this is good enough to remain FA.—indopug (talk) 14:07, 23 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Premier_League/archive2&oldid=1089082421"