Self-nomination I feel this list is capable of becoming a featured list, it has gone through a peer review, where issues were addressed, it has come a long way since I first stumbled across it. I await the communities judgement. Thanks in advance for your time NapHit (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
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?
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)
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)
How does UEFA reach its decision on the ranking in the coefficient list? Are there any websites that show each list, also?
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 itNapHit (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 createdNapHit (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support though I would still like to see it renamed. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
Comment All of the entries in the first table use the same reference, so the ref column should be removed, and the ref itself should be added as a general ref at the bottom, like here. -- Scorpion0422 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the ref to the bottom of the page using the general and specific headingsNapHit (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Struway2
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.
I've dealt with all your comments Struway, thanks for the commentsNapHit (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support Perhaps it would be better renamed List of ... winners, but as writing an article on this topic would come a long way down my list of priorities, I'm not going to push for it. The nominator has improved this list quite significantly following suggestions at this FLC. The list satisfies the criteria; it is stable and complete, is well-referenced and informative, and has an appropriate free-use image. Good work. Struway2 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment- The main image of the article has apparently been deleted, is there another one available? Also IMO, the lead needs a little bit more sourcing. TrUCo-X 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I've replaced the deleted image with one of Gerd Mullër, and I've added some more refs as well.NapHit (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok the image is good. But the refs you have put in, do they source the entire paragraph? Like I see 1 ref per paragraph, so they source the entire paragraph, am I correct?TrUCo-X 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes they doNapHit (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well after those fixes and per the list meeting FL criteria, I Support this FLC.--TrUCo-X 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.