Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coupe de la Ligue winners/archive1

:Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

{{Wikipedia:Featured list tools|1=List_of_Coupe_de_la_Ligue_winners}}

Short as it may be, I believe it satisfies the Featured List criteria. All comments welcome, and will be addressed ASAP. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|{{color|white|Resolved review by Truco}}|bg=Blue}}

Review by {{user|Truco}}

:;Lead

:*The tournament was established in 1994;[2] though other similar competitions have been previously held in France. -- comma after though Done - Added comma.

:*The winner of the first Coupe Charles Drago final was decided by a coin-toss after Sochaux and Toulouse finished level after extra time. -- after they finished level is a verb missing, or what does this mean (as to me it doesn't make sense) Done - Cleared up.

:*In 1982, a Coupe d'Eté (Summer cup) was held before the start of the season; which was won by Stade Laval. -- season of what? Done - Added "French league".

:*This tournement continued under the name of Coupe de la Ligue, until 1994, still before the beginning of the season. -- (1)Remove still (2)season of what? (3)typo on tournament Done - Done all three things.

:*I'm confused (the coupe de la ligue mentioned in the above sentence is the same one today or not?) Comment - It is not, I think this sentence "The tournament in its current format started in 1994" clears it up.

:*Gueugnon became the first team below the top division of France after beating Paris Saint-Germain in the 2000 final. -- you mean the first below "to win"? Done - Added "to win".

:*The lead should state who was the most recent winner and an overall count of the winners. Done - Added these.

:;Finals

:*Why isn't the score and venues made sortable? Comment - Having the venues as sortable doesn't really add anything as there are only two venues to have been used. The coloured cells seemed to mess up the sorting for the scores, and I'm not sure how to fix it.

::*I recommend (1)Remove the color coding and just leave the symbol or (2)Check out other sports related FLs to see how they format colored cells to sort properly, or (3)check out Help:Sortable table because its substantial to have that column sortable in these types of FLs.--₮RUCӨ 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

:::*User:Scorpion0422 has fixed this, cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

:;References

:*There is an inconsistency with the linking of the Ligue de Football Professionnel Done - Linked all. --₮RUCӨ 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

• Support -- Previous issues found in review resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
• Second sentence reads very oddly, and the punctuation is misplaced. I suggest "The tournament was established in 1994,[2] although similar competitions had been previously held in France" Done - Changed to that.
• "was held before the start of the French league season; which was won by" - semi-colon should be a comma Done - Changed to comma.
• "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup" - reads as if entrance to the UEFA Cup was the first part of the tournament. Should be something like "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup offered to the winning team" Done - Changed to that.
• ''"The first three years of the cup had been held" - wrong on two counts, firstly the tense is incorrect, and secondly only the final was held there, not the whole cup - suggest simply "The first three finals were held" Done - Changed to that.
• "Overall, there has been" => "Overall, there have been" Done - Changed.
• "having won the cup three times" => "who have won the cup three times" Done - Changed.
• "The current holders of the cup are Paris Saint-Germain, when they beat Lens" - very odd wording, why not just "....who beat Lens"? Done - Changed to that.
• Is footnote A really necessary? I think most people can work out what "attendance" means in the context of a sporting contest Done - Removed, sorry for the delay in replies, something came up. All concerns now dealt with. Cheers.
• Cheers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• All looks good now - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC) {{Hidden/FC|bg1= #00FFFF|contentcss=border:1px #4682B4 solid;padding:10px;|header= Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)|content=Comments from {{User|Dabomb87}}

• "The Coupe Charles Drago was held from 1953 to 1965, it involved teams eliminated from the Coupe de France." Comma should be a semicolon. Done - Changed.
• "by a coin-toss after Sochaux and Toulouse tied 3–3 after extra time." Can we rephrase to avoid the "after ... after" repetition? Done - Changed to "when".
• "Another competition named Coupe de la Ligue existed from 1963 to 1965, this was run inline with Coupe Charles Drago for two years until they both ceased." The comma should be a semicolon. "run inline" is a bit confusing. Done - Changed to semicolon and changed "inline" to "alongside".
• "In 1982, a Coupe d'Eté (Summer cup) was held before the start of the French league season, which was won by Stade Laval." Ambiguous, was the season won by Stade or the cup? Done - Changed to ";the cup".
• "with entrance to the UEFA Cup offered to the winning team." "with" is usually a poor connector. You may want to make this a separate sentence. Done - Split it.
• "Only Strasbourg and Paris Saint-Germain have won the competition at both stadiums." Done - Removed "only".
• "Overall, there have been 14 winners of the competition, since 1995." Second comma not needed. Done - Removed comma.
• "three times"-->thrice Done - Changed.
• "The current holders of the cup are Paris Saint-Germain" Insert comma after here. Done - Added comma. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

}}

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

: To me, seems good. I could not find any mistake.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Coupe de la Ligue and this article are both reasonably short. Is there any reason why they couldn't be merged together? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• :Sure, I'll do this now. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• ::If this is being done, then is there any reason for this FLC to be running? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• :::Sorry? I don't follow. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• ::::He's asking if you want to withdraw the FLC while you work on a merge. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• :::::Oh, yeah that'll be fine. I withdraw this nomination until the merge is complete. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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