Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players/archive1

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that its very close to FL standard. I'd like a few more pairs of eyes to see if anywhere can be improved before I nominate it. At the time of writing, there are 12 red links which will be gone soon. Thanks.

• I shouldn't worry too much about redlinks, FL candidates should have a majority of bluelinks but a few reds aren't a problem.
  • Indeed, but I thought I should mention it since red links are ugly (in my opinion).
• Positions for players in the first half of the list are largely anachronistic, specifying defenders and midfielders, not half-backs and full-backs. The key already seems to account for those positions, strangely enough.
  • I should really change them over for the pre-1965 players!* Credit to WFC for that table, which I nabbed from List of Watford F.C. players.
    • On this point, why is there a key to playing position abbreviations when the abbreviations aren't actually used in the list......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I missed this comment before! I've removed it now since I agree it served no purpose.
        ^talk 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• The key states wartime goals are excluded, presumably the same goes for appearances. Probably best to explicitly explain that wartime matches are not generally included by statisticians rather than call them unofficial.
  • Good point. I'll add that to note C.
• I take it the expunged games from the abandoned 1939–40 season are not included.
  • Included in note C.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the quick response.
  ^talk 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• *Nevermind. I did a few and previewed it just now; it made the list more cluttered and I forgot about note B which provides a link for specific positions. I like the table in the key so I'll leave it for now and if I have to take it out in FLC then no worries.
  ^talk 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I notice that the old photos are tagged as PD-US on the grounds that they were published outside the US prior to a certain date. If you do take this list to FLC, expect to be challenged to confirm/prove exactly where and when they were published, which is not currently stated on any of the image pages as far as I can see. For the use of that tag, as I understand it, "published" means exactly that - the image has to have been published prior to the date, not merely created..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feared that. Do you have any suggestions? A different tag maybe? I'm not an expert when it comes to pictures on Wikipedia. If there isn't a solution then I'll have to remove them because I have no publication dates or author names.
    ^talk 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm no expert either. They'd certainly be eligible to be tagged with {{PD-UK}}, although I've seen conflicting opinions on whether or not that is acceptable........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems much better than the current tag. I'll change them over later and see how it holds up in FLC. If some people don't like it then I'll just have to remove them.
        ^talk 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]