Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/European Golden Shoe

Issues

• In the lead, "Cyprus FA"; either Football Association (or the native equivalent), and a wikilink is needed.
• Could you explain what Serie A is, in the lead, for those who don't know.

done

• What does "relative strength" mean? Is it to do with the number of teams in the league, something FIFA set, or $omething el$e? And so why does Serie A have a higher weighting than the Welsh League?

done

• The first table, 68-91. The notes column needs not be sorted, but most of all, it needs notes!
• The sorting is messed up in the first table regarding Hristo Stoichkov's row, and Hugo Sánchez' row.
• Shouldn't all the teams' full names include FC, AFC, CF, etc?
• Similarly for the league. Fußball-Bundesliga, etc. Though I could deal with changing "A PFG" to "Bulgarian A PFG" for spacing reasons.
• It isn't clear which country the leagues are from. Perhaps some flagicons or something or other
• 91-96 needs refs in the notes column, which needs unsorting.
• Again, it's unclear which country "Umaglesi Liga" is in, so flagicons or other is needed, not just for this, but the entire table for consistency.
• In the third table, unwikilink the dates, unsort the references column, and add references.

The dates should remain wikilinked as they relate to the relevnt season NapHit (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't every other season wikilinked, from 67-68 to 95-96, and 97-98 and 04-05? Right now it's inconsistent. And the link points to that of the winning league's season. Surely the team's season would be better, or even something like "2005 to 2006 in European football". -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How does UEFA reach its decision on the ranking in the coefficient list? Are there any websites that show each list, also?

Question

• Should this be renamed "European Golden Boot winners"? There's probably enough information floating around on the internet, and in print, to be able to create an article all about the award itself, though that's not a must-be-done kind of thing.

So a few issues to resolve, and until each winner is referenced, I'm going to oppose for right now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Ok I think I have addressed all the issues you rose particularly regarding the citations. The reason I am opposed to a move to renaming the list is because there really is little information to warrant its own article, there really is very little info on the web, but if consensus determines it then so be it NapHit (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument to that would be that if there is very little information on the subject, it would not be

WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia standards, which means this list of winners would also not be notable, no? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I'll have to disagree seeing as this is a prestigious award to receive, there are sources, but they mainly list the winners, but do not document the trophy and its history particularly well, maybe there are sources in books but there is not much info in my books. It is definitely notable, its just that if this was moved, the information available would constitute a a stub to be created NapHit (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of stubs have been turned into Featured Articles. And just because you don't have the books, does that mean they don't exist? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Probably agree Matthew, it's a list of the winners so consider a rename.
• "award that is awarded to" - clumsy
• As per the PR, the sorting needs, well, sorting - it'll be the rowspan I guess.
• "dtermined"?
• Serie A linked twice in the lead, not needed.
• The references seem incomplete - are these nine references sufficient to provide citation of all 39 winners?

So I can't support at the moment since there are significant formatting and citation problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok TRM cheers for the comments, I think I have addressed all the issues, except for renaming which I think is unnecessary given the little information available on the subject NapHit (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • Should it be called Golden Shoe rather than Boot, as this is what UEFA (your note 11) and European Sports Magazines (your note 9) call it nowadays? The BBC reference for Phillips (your note 7) refers to "the prize, formerly known as the Golden Boot".
  • It would be helpful if the table clarified what country the leagues are in (A PFG doesn't really mean much, for instance).
  • Notes columns shouldn't be sortable.
  • First three entries in winners from 1996 table need notes.
  • You have goalscorer hyphenated (in the intro to the first table) which for consistency should be one unhyphenated word. Top-scorer should be two separate words.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with all your comments Struway, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I've copyedited the lead, please feel free to revert any changes you don't like, and added dates to several of your citations (references to news reports should always include the publication date, where this is available). The one thing you do need to do is highlight the seasons where there are joint winners. Presumably you've got them in separate rows for the sorting (?), but they need to show up somehow. Perhaps a note attached to the season year, perhaps colour the season year cell as well (not too bright, though, see
  WP:Colours), but for accessibility you couldn't have just colouring. Once that's done I'll be happy to support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]