Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Amsterdam Tournament/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 16:16, 23 September 2010 [1].

Amsterdam Tournament

Featured list candidates/Amsterdam Tournament/archive1

Nominator(s):

^talk 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Having seen

^talk 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Support. The refs seem a bit repetitive, using {{
Harv}} maybe would've been more appropriate... otherwise, nicely done. -- œ ^™ 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the quick response. I haven't seen {{Harv }} used in my field of expertise before, interesting.

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I'm glad the Gamper got you going. Sandman888 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It hadn't crossed my mind before I saw your effort, so thanks.
link "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation" first time around.
- Linked.
innovative use of table legend.
- Thanks, I like avoiding white space if possible.
why did you split the stats table in two?
- I thought readers might want to sort winners and "also-rans" separately. It would be straight-forward to merge them if needs must.
"winners" seems to be randomly sorted initially.
- They're listed chronologically if teams are tied.
  - If I sort by total and then by winners I no longer get the original listing (IE on XP). Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be because its listing them in order of wins and then total, unless I'm missing something? As far as I'm aware you can't reset a sorting table without refreshing the page - that is what I do anyway.
      ^talk 06:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - I believe that the initial sorting should be available after re-sorting without refreshing. Why don't you just sort them by wins and then totals to start with? Sandman888 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done.
no scores?
- What do you include and what do you leave out? In its current format, its possible for the winner and runner-up not to play each other.
  - Ah, ok. Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments.

^talk 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Support Looks good. Sandman888 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "John Wark scored in the the 1981 final" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have double checked the captions! Thanks.
  ^talk 07:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments on an otherwise fine list:

- "... while Belgium has produced the most individual winners; four. One more than England and Netherlands." — I'd replace the semicolon and period with commas, thus joining the two related sentences;
  - Done.
- I would much prefer that winners and non-winners be presented and sorted in a single table. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your wish is my command.
    ^talk 04:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Four teams participate in the competition, which has been in a league" maybe "...competition, played in a league..."

Done.

"Since its return in 1999," not convinced you need to repeat this information which you gave some two sentences ago..

Removed year to avoid repetition.

"Ajax's main domestic rivals" I think we all know they're the "main" rivals, but without sourcing, this could be misconstrued as POV, so maybe just leave it as "Ajax's domestic rivals"?

Done.

You link Belgium, but you didn't link Belgian, which appeared a few lines beforehand...

Delinked for consistency.

Q: Is there any guide to who was invited? I noted my lot were invited after winning the FA Cup. What about the others?

I couldn't find anything reliable. The first tournament included Molenbeek as Belgian champions, but Feyenoord and Barcelona didn't appear to win anything in the previous season.

Cruyff caption, could you put some dates on his involvement please?

Added that he scored once in the first tournament.

Typically we expand and link RSSSF in the references as it's a bit nebulous for non-experts.

Should I definitely link RSSSF in each reference? I thought it might be considered overlinking. I've added its full name while its linked at the top as a general reference.

Okay, that's fine by me, I missed it, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 34 to 38 need an en-dash, not spaced hyphens.

Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.

^talk 05:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

~~Comments~~ Support

~~Was there a competition this year? If so, why isn't it included?~~
~~Remove comma immediately after first use of Arsenal.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No there wasn't one for 2010. Ajax were involved in the

^talk 21:31, 19 September 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.