Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Liverpool F.C. seasons

*Comments Very good, but some comments.

• • ...Houlding decided to form a new club, an initial approach..." - needs rewording.
  • "...for the 1892–93 season. Which they..." - makes no sense.
  • ..."match.." - need to remove the extra full stop.
  • ...1900-01..." - endash needed
  • "Liverpool reached their first FA Cup Final in 1914, losing to Burnley, the club won..." makes no grammatical sense.
  • "...first division..." - needs capitalising.
  • "stewardship" - should say something like "management" instead.
  • "...the, European cup..." - misplaced comma and "cup" needs capitalising.
  • "...season,[6] this..." - should say "which".
  • "...and FA Cup won..." - no need for "wom".
  • "1st" needs to be in gold on all instances.
  • Maybe what "DNE" stands for could be shown in the key?

It is, it's at the top of the Key to rounds NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly issues with the prose. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments they have have all bee dealt with NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• More comments Not far now, just a few bits...
  • "Liverpool won their first league title during the 1900–01 season" - needs clarifying that it was their first Division One title.
  • "...won the title this time"... - add a comma between "title this".
  • ...when Liverpool regained..." - I'd recommend saying "they" instead of using "Liverpool" twice in one sentence.
• Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

*Comments (with current oppose)

• • Prose-wise
    • "With an empty stadium, Houlding decided to form a new club, his application for the club to play in the Football League was rejected." needs re-wording, it includes two main verbs and two disjointed clauses. Also needs a reference.
    • "Thus Liverpool entered the Lancashire League for the 1892–93 season, which they subsequently won, ensuring promotion to the Second Division for the following season, Liverpool won the league without losing a match." Similar to above. The last clause is disjointed to the main theme of the sentence. And promotion is also wrong.
    • Generally the prose needs a good copy-edit. It's very disjointed in my opinion.
  • Other than that, everything looks fine and dealt with since the Peer Review. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I've gone through the prose and I now think it's a lot better than it was before NapHit (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly better. But think the prose still has a lot of short sentences. But nothing worthy of an oppose. Peanut4 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've rectified some of the sentences which can flow into each other, any better now? NapHit (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments First, sorry I never got back to the peer review; looked at the list the other day and it was tagged {{inuse}}, and next time I looked it was here, and much improved!

• The bit about bolding players shouldn't really be in the lead, it already appears appropriately in the key. Also, I'm not sure you really need to mention the local cups not being included.
• In the table, you may want to note that Liverpool's early promotions/relegation were through the test match system, as automatic promotion/relegation didn't come in until 1898-99.
• You're missing the 1945-46 FA Cup.
• Where there are multiple competitions in the same season, as in 2005-06, if the competition box is split up into separate rows, the rounds reached in each comp can be coloured appropriately. As in Leeds seasons 1970-71, for example.
• At 1024-width screen, the 2005-06 season wraps to seven display lines because the Other/Europe column is so narrow. Could you consider listing the Charity/Community Shield in the Other/Europe column, as Leeds seasons does, rather than having it separate?
• You have 'NF' in the rounds key but no such table entry.

that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comment Struway, hopefully the list is more o your liking now? NapHit (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)