Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Neftchi Baku PFC in European football/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:48, 30 January 2013 [1].
Neftchi Baku PFC in European football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/Neftchi Baku PFC in European football/archive1
- Featured list candidates/Neftchi Baku PFC in European football/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FL-criteria. I am nominating this for featured list as I believe, that after quite some work, it's ready for FL Status. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not ready, try a peer review
- Lead is too long, try four paras max.
- Why is the list title used in prose to start the lead?
- Don't bold links in the lead.
- "5 ... 5 ... one" -> WP:MOSNUM says be consistent, either words or numbers in a sentence for comparable items.
- The 5 and 5 and 5 and 1 and 1 and 1 add up to 13, not 12, you need to explain the difference.
- "The club has an excellent European cup record," POV.
- Overlinking, e.g. Baku.
- "In 2012-13, Group stage" as a title, not good and if you use year ranges, comply with WP:DASH.
- Why isn't the list in chronological order?
- " 30-08-2012." isn't a date format you should use in prose, captions or otherwise.
- The right-hand table isn't explained at all.
- Table doesn't comply with WP:ACCESS most notably MOS:DTT.
- Season years were delineated in the lead with an en-dash, in the table with a slash. Be consistent.
- Need to check the "result" graphics are readable by screen readers. Not sure they're necessary, would suggest an aggregate score and an explicit Won/Drawn/Lost result.
- Lots of the Key is irrelevant not used.
- "Participations" not even sure if this is English.
- Refs need consistent formats, access dates, correct publication dates, publishers etc.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.