User talk:Struway2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:48, 12 April 2011


to Sept 2008	to June 2009	to Sept 2010	current

Muntz Street – FAC?

Well, shorter articles that are less well written and much less interesting, have made it through FAC. I have just run through it again, made some small prose and punctuation fixes, and come up with three small points for attention:-

Is it possible to give a year for the building of the wooden stand on the Coventry Road side?
You have the words "along the Coventry Road to Small Heath Park" in quotes, without indicating where you are quoting them from. I assume this is covered by the citation at the paragraph's end, but this is not obvious, and the question is likely to be asked. Personally I would simply drop the quote marks, as there is nothing especially vivid in the wording that makes it worth highlighting.
The phrasing "no fewer than 3,000 spectators" has a hidden "wow" element. I'd change it to "at least 3,000 spectators".

If you deal with these, then read the FA criteria and, if you feel confident you can defend the article against them, then why not nominate? Pay particular attention to the quality of your sources and to images, as these are areas of much attention at FAC, as you may have found at your previous visit. Let me know if you decide to take this one there. Brianboulton (talk)

Roarie Deacon

Hello Struway. The link included in the CSD tag refers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Yennaris. Is Roarie Deacon and Nico Yennaris the same person? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Struway2. You have new messages at Vejvančický's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletions

Good morning. I have now added the project tag to the discussion pages that needed it, so they should get picked up by the bot soon. I assumed they already had the tag yesterday which was lazy on my part. Regards. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1892–93 Small Heath F.C. season

On 29 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1892–93 Small Heath F.C. season, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Small Heath F.C. was not promoted to the Football League First Division after winning the inaugural Second Division title in 1892–93, while the second- and third-place teams were? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1892–93 Small Heath F.C. season

Thanks for the note. IMHO, the article is not far off "B" standard. As you say, a few more illustrations would be good. How about the one of the Coventry Road stadium?

Other areas you could think about:

The squad statistics would be better if the table was sortable.
I like to see the matches colour coded, e.g green for a win, pink/red for a defeat and cream/yellow for a draw.
Personally, I like to keep the League and Cup seasons separate, although as the FA Cup season was so short, this may not be a problem.
Can you add the team strips (home and away) to the infobox?
Finally, how about adding a table of player transfers in & out?

I hope this helps. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The sortable table I used here looks OK, I think. I note your comments about the illustrations - I don't think that alone will prevent the article being upgraded to "B"; likewise, with the player movements, if the information is not available. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I see that the only season article from the same era that has been promoted as a Good Article concerns one of your local rivals (see here). Personally, I don't think it merits GA status, but that just goes to show how subjective the whole issue is! DK

I have re-rated the article as "B" class. I think you should now aim for GA status. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1991 European Cup Final

Hey man, it looks like we've got another problem at 1991 European Cup Final. I believe it's the same anon back again trying to highlight Serbia's status as the successor to Yugoslavia's football record. I think I may have already exceeded WP:3RR, so I would appreciate some help. – Pee Jay 07:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Rangers links

Hi Struway2,

Thanks for the heads up. I've never really edited wikipedia before (apart from a few minor things here and there) so wasn't aware of those rules etc... I hadn't realise I was breaking any rules and hadn't thought about the consequences. I'll refrain from posting links to the site from now on. :-)

Thanks

Clubstats (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 Hey man, it looks like we've got another problem at [[1991 European Cup Final]]. I believe it's the same anon back again trying to highlight Serbia's status as the successor to Yugoslavia's football record. I think I may have already exceeded [[WP:3RR]], so I would appreciate some help. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 07:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
+== External Rangers links ==
+Hi Struway2,
+Thanks for the heads up. I've never really edited wikipedia before (apart from a few minor things here and there) so wasn't aware of those rules etc...  I hadn't realise I was breaking any rules and hadn't thought about the consequences. I'll refrain from posting links to the site from now on. :-)
+Thanks
+[[User:Clubstats|Clubstats]] ([[User talk:Clubstats|talk]]) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)