Joao10Siamun (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Rambo's Revenge (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
**"title-winning drought" isn't much better. Drought is not very neutral and sounds critical. Maybe something like ...in the hiatus between... [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><font color="#E32636">Rambo's Revenge</font></b>]] [[User talk:Rambo's Revenge|<small><b><font color="#FFA500">(talk)</font></b></small>]] 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
**"title-winning drought" isn't much better. Drought is not very neutral and sounds critical. Maybe something like ...in the hiatus between... [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><font color="#E32636">Rambo's Revenge</font></b>]] [[User talk:Rambo's Revenge|<small><b><font color="#FFA500">(talk)</font></b></small>]] 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
***I honestly don't really understand the issue with the original statement. When I was referring to Marseille's dormant stage, I was eluding to the club's consecutive years without a league title as stated in the previous sentence. Dormant can also mean "alive but not actively growing", which I was implying. — [[User:Joao10Siamun|Joao10Siamun]] ([[User talk:Joao10Siamun|talk]]) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
***I honestly don't really understand the issue with the original statement. When I was referring to Marseille's dormant stage, I was eluding to the club's consecutive years without a league title as stated in the previous sentence. Dormant can also mean "alive but not actively growing", which I was implying. — [[User:Joao10Siamun|Joao10Siamun]] ([[User talk:Joao10Siamun|talk]]) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
* |
*"The championship started a national record-breaking streak of seven successive titles" - had to read this multiple times. I found "the championship" confusing. Suggest rewording. |
||
*<s>"Marseille has nine professional league titles and one amateur title having won that one during the 1928–29 season" - might be me but "has" then "having" seems strange. In fact, perhaps, it is just the "having won that one" which is redundent. How about ...and one amateur title which they won in the 1928–29 season.</s> |
*<s>"Marseille has nine professional league titles and one amateur title having won that one during the 1928–29 season" - might be me but "has" then "having" seems strange. In fact, perhaps, it is just the "having won that one" which is redundent. How about ...and one amateur title which they won in the 1928–29 season.</s> |
||
*<s>In the table link SC Fives to [[SC Fives]]. You should also not in the "Championships by club" section why that title is attributed to Lille.</s> |
*<s>In the table link SC Fives to [[SC Fives]]. You should also not in the "Championships by club" section why that title is attributed to Lille.</s> |
||
* |
*It is my understading that abbreviations such as "RC" ([[Racing Club]]), "SC" (Sporting Club), "CA" (Cercle Athlétique), "SO" (Stade Olympique) are all placeholders a bit like FC (football club). I'm not sure you should sort by these letters when they appear at the start of a name: see {{tl|sort}} |
||
*:I kept CO Roubaix and RC Roubaix and RCF Paris and CA Paris in order to differentiate them. — [[User:Joao10Siamun|Joao10Siamun]] ([[User talk:Joao10Siamun|talk]]) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
*:I kept CO Roubaix and RC Roubaix and RCF Paris and CA Paris in order to differentiate them. — [[User:Joao10Siamun|Joao10Siamun]] ([[User talk:Joao10Siamun|talk]]) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
* |
*:Some are still present. SO Montipellier and others. Additionally, where you have "RCF Paris" and "CA Paris" you should use {{tl|sort}} to make both sort under "Paris". This should be done for other clubs where prefixes are kept too. |
||
* |
*Why do you use short names (e.g. Saint-Étienne) in one table but full names in the next table (e.g. AS Saint-Étienne). Be consistent |
||
*In 1932–33, none of the sources seem to indicate that Marsielle would be third. This season was unique in that it had Group A and B. With the winners in the final 1st and 2nd place are obvious but why are Marseille (Group A runners-up) more eligible for third place than FC Sochaux-Montbéliard (Group B runners-up). Either needs source, explanation, or an mdash (probably with a footnote of explanation). |
*In 1932–33, none of the sources seem to indicate that Marsielle would be third. This season was unique in that it had Group A and B. With the winners in the final 1st and 2nd place are obvious but why are Marseille (Group A runners-up) more eligible for third place than FC Sochaux-Montbéliard (Group B runners-up). Either needs source, explanation, or an mdash (probably with a footnote of explanation). |
||
Revision as of 10:21, 2 July 2010
List of French football champions
List of French football champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is capable of being one due to the list's importance in French football and its overall accuracy. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
---|
Comment Sandman888 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Support Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Took FLC down and re-posted following conclusion of peer review. Made some edits based on peer review, other than posting pictures as it is very difficult to find pictures of old French coaches and players. Will possibly do that later.Joao10Siamun (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - there are no references at all for the tables, what is sourcing this info.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Posted the references for the tables. Didn't know exactly where to put them, so I added them to after the tab subject. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
- What on Earth is this, and why is it a reliable source?
I may come back with more later, but this struck me. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was the only source I could find in English that verified that the first French championship was held in 1894. After further researching, I found a better source. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I know others will pick apart the prose, and I'm just nto feeling like digging through endashes and stuff today, but the referencing needs some attention, so, here comes nitpicking.
- Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reference one appears to be a book- we need a publisher, and an ISBN if available.
Ref 3 is tagged as in French, but is in English. Further, the publisher is tagged as "UEFA"- an acronym that is nowhere introduced- spell it out.It also has a quasi-publication date at the bottomRef 4 has both an author and publication date, as well as another new acronym as the publisher. Not convinced on reliability, either.- Ref 5- identical problems as above
- Ref 6- Publisher- You've not introduced FIFA in this article, so please don't use acronyms that aren't defined anywhere. (Yeah, anyone knows what this means, but it's not defined in the prose.)
- Ref 7- Give the author, and the publisher (Guardian Media Group, for the record)
- Ref 9- is in French, and not tagged as such.
- Ref 10- Give the author, and the publisher, (Independent News & Media this time)
- Ref 11- Ditto as above
- Ref 12- Why is this reliable?
- Ref 13- Link all the publishers and works that have articles, or link none of them.
- The rest look alright, but put me down as an oppose until the references are carefully cleaned up. Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I will take care of the rest tomorrow. It's getting late. — Joao10Siamun
- It was the only source I could find in English that verified that the first French championship was held in 1894. After further researching, I found a better source. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
(talk) 21:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
|
- Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
*Comment:
Just fix those things and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
- Support. I didn't notice my comments were fixed originally; make sure you reply to comments here so that we notice in the future. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'll happily review the list as soon as outstanding comments are addressed. Just leave a note on my talkpage if I don't spot it automatically. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think outstanding concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - as pointed out above, in a sortable table, names need to be linked every time they appear, not just the first time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done by nom Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As a regular contributor of French football here, I should express some remarks :
- Third image on the right (1926-27 champions) should be CA Paris instead of CA Paris-Charenton, which is the name the club took in the 1960's if I remember well.
- No AS Saint-Etienne image. That's a shame for the dominent French club of the 1970's. Maybe the picture of Georges Bereta could be used, as he was a key part of the team.
- Tom me, in the "Championships by club" table, amateurs championships should be, just as the 1944-45 championship, written in a different way (italic) as they have a different "status" than professional championships and are not really recognized. For example, Marseille has officially 9 championships.
However, that's a very good work. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. English champions before 1920 harp on about their early titles as equal achievements to recent ones, despite the fact that at that stage clubs south of Birmingham didn't take part. I think the current system is adequate- a reader can easily tell by looking at the table how many of a club's titles were amateur or professional. WFCforLife (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for now
"the professional football championship of France has been contested through Ligue 1", I know what you are saying but if I'm nitpicking it is not strictly true. It was actually contested through National (1932-33) and Division 1 (1933-2002), which have now become Ligue 1. It might be worth mentioning these previous incarnations as the majority of French champions actually won "Division 1"."reverting the league" You never mentioned it had that structure before.- "Marseille's dormant stage" - choice of wording. They still came second on multiple occasions so I don't think wikt:dormant is the right word
- "title-winning drought" isn't much better. Drought is not very neutral and sounds critical. Maybe something like ...in the hiatus between... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly don't really understand the issue with the original statement. When I was referring to Marseille's dormant stage, I was eluding to the club's consecutive years without a league title as stated in the previous sentence. Dormant can also mean "alive but not actively growing", which I was implying. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- "title-winning drought" isn't much better. Drought is not very neutral and sounds critical. Maybe something like ...in the hiatus between... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- "The championship started a national record-breaking streak of seven successive titles" - had to read this multiple times. I found "the championship" confusing. Suggest rewording.
"Marseille has nine professional league titles and one amateur title having won that one during the 1928–29 season" - might be me but "has" then "having" seems strange. In fact, perhaps, it is just the "having won that one" which is redundent. How about ...and one amateur title which they won in the 1928–29 season.In the table link SC Fives to SC Fives. You should also not in the "Championships by club" section why that title is attributed to Lille.- It is my understading that abbreviations such as "RC" (Racing Club), "SC" (Sporting Club), "CA" (Cercle Athlétique), "SO" (Stade Olympique) are all placeholders a bit like FC (football club). I'm not sure you should sort by these letters when they appear at the start of a name: see {{sort}}
- I kept CO Roubaix and RC Roubaix and RCF Paris and CA Paris in order to differentiate them. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Some are still present. SO Montipellier and others. Additionally, where you have "RCF Paris" and "CA Paris" you should use {{sort}} to make both sort under "Paris". This should be done for other clubs where prefixes are kept too.
- Why do you use short names (e.g. Saint-Étienne) in one table but full names in the next table (e.g. AS Saint-Étienne). Be consistent
- In 1932–33, none of the sources seem to indicate that Marsielle would be third. This season was unique in that it had Group A and B. With the winners in the final 1st and 2nd place are obvious but why are Marseille (Group A runners-up) more eligible for third place than FC Sochaux-Montbéliard (Group B runners-up). Either needs source, explanation, or an mdash (probably with a footnote of explanation).
These are all simple to fix but I'll oppose temporarily until they are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with these details I've not seen before. About the previous names of ligue 1: they are just renaming, not the creation of a new entity such as the English premier league. About Marseille dormant stage : after their champion's league title, they did not won a major title in 17 years, so it could be justified.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dormant means inactive. I agree they didn't win anything in a long time, but they weren't inactive (dormant). A better choice of word is needed. As for the name. I know it isn't a new league but I think the names are worthy of a mention (the one-year National I can do without but almost 90% of French championship seasons have been called Division 1). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)