The following is an archived discussion of afeatured article nomination.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or inWikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article waspromoted 00:05, 18 February 2008.

Check external links

This shall be the last time I burden your doorsteps with my pleas of your time and energy! The History of ITFC is the final piece of myfeatured topic jigsaw puzzle and I'll do anything to get the article up to the standard required by the community in order to assure its place as afeatured article. As ever, I've had apeer review which has received considerable detailed scrutiny from a fewWP:FOOTBALL editors, notably ChrisTheDude, Dweller and, with a half-term magnifying glass, Kevin McE, all three of whom I offer my sincerest thanks on getting the article to where it is.

As an Ipswich fan it's impossible for me to write this article on my own without veering off into bias and desperate POV so I'm hoping the PR and thisWP:FAC will iron out any remaining creases. My thanks as always to any editor prepared to contribute to, comment upon, support or oppose this article's candidacy. I will work relentlessly (apart from when I'm asleep) to get onto suggestions as soon as they're offered.The Rambling Man (talk)17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - Everything looks OK and referenced, but this part looks unreferenced:

he led Ipswich to third place in the 1937–38 season.

• Apart from that, looks good.D.M.N. (talk)18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed that I think, thanks for the good spot!The Rambling Man (talk)19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on dates – I think the main problem with this article is the dates, and the Easter egg links hidden behind some of the years ([[1907-08 in English football|1907]], for example). At the moment, why should a drive-by user click onthat 1907, as opposed to a 1907 linked via [[1 January]] [[1907]]? On top of that, the way you've done it has broken auto-formatting for we few, we happy few, who have our date preferences set – UK format dates don't have the comma between the month and the year – where you have the "normal" date linked, the comma isn't there for me (a UK user), but where you have the "Easter egg" links, the commais there. I suspect the best way to sort this out would be to just ditch the auto-formatted dates completely, and leave the linked years for the relevant [[<year> in <whatever>]] high-value links. More reason to sort out that horrible date-auto-formatting-and-linking-blue-splodge-nastiness.Carré (talk)18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well this kind of linking is typical in football history articles, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I thought I was in compliance withWP:DATE with these piped links out to seasons. Is this a problem that transcends this article alone (i.e. is it something theWP:MOS should cover), or do you believe this article should lead the way, with dates per your suggestions? I don't think the linkage of seasons is really Easter egg-esque, it's really a very common device. I don't want to lose the links to the relevant seasons. How can we solve this?The Rambling Man (talk)19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "problem" (if it is one) is certainly not limited to this article - there's loads of [[<year> in <whatever>|<year>]] links out there. To be honest, I don't know what the solution is :) There was a long and convoluted discussion about it at one of the MOS talk pages recently, but I wasn't interested enough to follow it to its conclusion (ahh, here it is). The links to the seasons are what I'd call high-value links, while those to just the year (as caused by autoformatting) are, more often than not, no-value-at-all links, hence the suggestion of removing normal date autoformatting (I think that's supported these days, in MOS). I certainly agree you shouldn't lose the links to the season articles - that would just be cutting your nose off to spite your face. Sandy and Raul are both sensible enough to know this isn't an oppose that would prevent the article's promotion (and scupper your FT!), and as such maybe this isn't the best place to discuss it.

In short, the problem isn't with the article, nor in the "Year in Topic" links, but in the autoformatting. (edit conflict there, but I think this answers the message on my talk too)Carré (talk)19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved those MOS discussions and specifically requested that the football seasons be taken into account. The ambiguous nature of the guideline is that these links are allowed. I agree that the issue needs sorting out as users will not really click on links such as [[1907-08 in English football|1907]]. I try to write it as [[1907-08 in English football|1907 season]] where possible which is a better compromise in my opinion.Woody (talk)16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some minor points:

• Comment: I have already suggested that the Cobbold family's history of involvement with the club might be worth including. To make this truly a history of ITFC, rather than a playing history of the team, info about changes in ownership and major backroom figures (Sheepshanks?)might be beneficial.Kevin McE (talk)23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I sympathise with this sentiment. It'll have to wait for TRM's return for now. --Dweller (talk)10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some details on the Cobbolds throughout the article having chanced upon a delightful article from the Cobbold Family Trust. Please let me know if you think it's sufficient. I'm also after some decent meat on Sheepshanks as well, since he's probably the only other high profile director, as you have identified.The Rambling Man (talk)12:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noticed one more "iffy" sentence:"Matteo Sereni and Finidi George arrived before the 2001–02 season saw to boost the squad for its foray into Europe".....ChrisTheDude (talk)08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --Dweller (talk)10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel too involved with the article to support it (it's in the top 10 on my edit count, not that I edit count. Well, not that I edit countvery often. Ahem.) TRM's out of touch for a bit, and I'll be babysitting for him. --Dweller (talk)10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written, seems complete to this Ipswich fan as I read it this evening. Fixed a typo or two though. -JVG (talk)00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All my concerns have been addressed, happy to support nowChrisTheDude (talk)08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: external link checker is indicating one dead link. Please reviewWP:LEAD andWP:MOSBOLD regarding bolding of alternate names in the lead and bolding elsewhere in the text. Please seeWP:MOSNUM regarding spelling out vs. use of digits ( ... margin of just 2 votes, ... ). Please seeWP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation or not of complete sentences vs. sentence fragments in image captions. Pls seeWP:MOSDATE regarding consistent linking of dates ( ... On 7 July 2006, Robson was named ...). Perhaps askEpbr123 (talk ·contribs) to run through one more time to make sure these MOS issues are cleared up. Regards,SandyGeorgia (Talk)18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Sandy. The date linking is still a bigger issue than this article alone. I'm not sure it can be solved here. But hopefully we can address your concerns.The Rambling Man (talk)19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes ... but if you link some, you've got to link them all, and you did link some :-)SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now there's no bolded title in the lead? (WP:MOSBOLD,WP:LEAD).SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - I would wikilink all dates until advised otherwise, some of my more diligent copyeditors have removed some of them. As for the boldness, ask Epbr123!The Rambling Man (talk)19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, thanks for your links out to the various MOS policies. One day I'll know them off by heart...!The Rambling Man (talk)19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD states, "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive ... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface".Epbr123 (talk)20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you reviewed :-) And glad that is sorted out now atWP:LEAD, because it's been a source of confusion on many articles.SandyGeorgia (Talk)20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went with "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." from MOSDATE. No dates in this article would therefore need to be linked, only seasons/cup campaigns etc. I'm not sure what additional understanding is gained from7 July or2006. Frankly, I don't really care, so long as it's consistent. I think MOSDATE is a mess though. --Dweller (talk)11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: My only remaining wish ould be an aestheteic one: the last section has such long paragraphs, with so much blue text and reference numbers, that it is uncomfortable to look at. Not sure how one gets around that. But content seems highly worthy of promotion.—Precedingunsigned comment added byKevin McE (talk •contribs)12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Kevin, thanks so much for all your efforts, here and at the PR, I very much appreciate it. As for the blue text in the final section, perhaps I'm guilty of overlinking or over-referencing, but I suspect that obvious links if left unlinked will soon be linked and claims without reference will find a{{cn}} template whacked on... damned if you do, damned if you don't!The Rambling Man (talk)12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written and referenced, adequately illustrated, no obvious omissions, style remarkably neutral for a fan writing about their club.Struway2 (talk)15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still getting one 404 error on the link checker: can someone pls check.SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking this instant Sandy, stand by...The Rambling Man (talk)19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cured.The Rambling Man (talk)19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks; what took 'ya so long?  :-)SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Too busy watching FA Cup goals!The Rambling Man (talk)19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article needs some copy editing. For example see:[1]--GrahamColm^Talk 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)--GrahamColm^Talk17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. Thisalways comes up at football club articles. Seediscretionary plurals. I'm never going to be able to please all the people all the time with this issue, it's undergone at least two thorough copyedits. As soon as someone changes from plural to singular, someone changes it back to plural again. There doesn't seem to be acorrect answer, just opinion....The Rambling Man (talk)16:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support I'm not a football fan but I found the article interesting and not bogged down with trivial minutae. There is a minor issue with the linked dates, some of which don't link to anything to do with football. I think I have most of them: 30th May 1938, 1 May 1936, 10th November, July 1982, July 2006, 5 June 2006, 11 May 2006. I have checked the links in the references and they are all live. On the whole, a fine contribution. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this in addition to the discussion about dates above? If I unlink complete dates (and I'm not sure ifWP:DATE mandates or simply recommends not linking dates like this) then it's just a matter of time (and will become a perpetual fight) before they become linked. And funnily enough, there's been some comment as to whether "easter egg" links should be used as well. This article candidacy seems to have become a battleground for a number of Wikipedia-wide outstanding manual of style issues! The MOS says "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." I could (could) argue that linking to those dates should go to pages which say what also happened on that day and that year to provide context. But that's tenuous. In the history of this article we havethis which seems to suggest wikilinking is ok (or, at least, consistency in the article should be maintained) andthis edit (amongst a number by Dweller) which seems to suggest no dates should really be linked to unless they're piped to other "easter eggs" (which is disliked by other editors). I wonder if it's another damned if I do, damned if I don't issue. I'm happy to go with the consensus, no matter what it is, but in this matter there really doesn't seem to be one, so consistency within the article really seems to be the most important approach in my opinion...The Rambling Man (talk)17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've de-linked the non-football ones. I think the policy is quite clear on not linking years, but check with Sandy and I won't be offended if you revert me. Graham.--GrahamColm^Talk17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.