Jump to content

Talk:Charlton Athletic F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 15 June 2008 (→Kits: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleCharlton Athletic F.C. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2024Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject iconEngland GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFootball: England GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

"Disappointing Players for Charlton"

I see no benefit in this little section. It is pure opinion and has no place on this page surely.

Transfers

I have removed the transfers section, as Wikipedia is not a news service. Oldelpaso 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalized

Someone vandalized the Top paragraph

http://www.cafc.co.uk/CharltonOverseas.ink Has details on the MyPa and NZ Knights links.

Neutrality

The paragraphs about the fan director strike me as biased in the extreme. I don't personally know enough about the gentleman in question to be able to rewrite it, though. Js farrar 11:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates & dashes

En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments

I've put it on hold it as WP:GA for the following reasons:

  • Poor grammar throughout, "it's" instead of "its" for example, no spaces after commas.
  • Mixture of proper citations and in-line references.
  • Failure to use en-dash for season separators.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club's first Football League match was against Exeter City in August 1921, which was won 1–0" - by whom?! Just an example, there are many more.
  • 1923/24 vs 1985-86 - consistency required, plus en-dash, as already stated.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section could do with being made into four or five longer paragraphs, instead of the current thirteen.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now demolished yet impressive Siemens Telegraph Works" - why impressive? This sentence doesn't seem to flow for me.
Removed --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation required on the final claims in the Stadia section.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlton are rare among football clubs..." - prove it.
  • Transfers in and out not really needed - if you really want to keep them then make them two columns and make the references into proper citations so they appear in the References section.
Removed --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per most club articles, what makes this list of players notable? Highly subjective. To cure this, normally a sub-page is created with a set of specific criteria applied (e.g. more than 100 games, 100 goals, etc etc).
Doing this at the moment --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other information needs to be moved into the main body, not after the Honours section - see the Manual of Style for clubs at WP:FOOTBALL.
Removed that section as I couldn't really see how to integrate it into the main body --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim external links per WP:EL.

If someone wishes to attend to these and let me know so I can review the article again for GA, that'd be cool. The Rambling Man 07:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand most of this, but could you please elaborate on your fourth point? --Mas 18 dl 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that example, there's no clear indication who won 1-0, it could have been either of the teams. It'd be better with something like "...in August 1921 with Charlton winning 1–0...". The Rambling Man 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok that makes sense --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on it will be reviewed by Chaza1000 shortly Chaza1000 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I think it's well written and cites its references. It isn't that stable but I'll pass it. Chaza1000 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Can you promote an article to "GA status" all by yourself? - fchd 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can, if it fits the status, i review Sports articles for GA Chaza93 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks --Mas 18 dl 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different numbers of capacity

I see that in the infobox, the capacity is stated as 27114, but somewhere in the article stated as 27111. What is the actual number of seats? (Addaick 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sure it's 27111 which is widely reported as a capacity attendence. I'll change the infobox number--Mas 18 dl 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody with a complete stats record?

I'm looking for info on how many goals Hasse Jeppson also known as Hans Jeppson scored for Charlton when he was at the club. He played twelve games for them during 1951, does anybody have a book detailing CA stats? - Soprani 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He scored 9, but the book I got it from says he only played 11 times for us. It may be that your total includes cup games, but I can't be sure.--Mas 18 dl 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it up, if the book says 11 games I'll go with that. - Soprani 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reserves

I have created a Charlton Athletic F.C. Reserves page, just incase you are interested in taking a look. Dirk Valentine 13:27, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

Kits

Thanks for looking at this if you were going to replace the kits. I'd just like to know why wanted to replace the kits, because they had to much detail, surely the more detail there is the better. Also the kits you chose look nothing, except colour-wise, like the new kits and i think it is nice to have our actual clubs kits on the page.

These were created in the same vein as the England national football team kits and Crystal Palace F.C. kits --Dirk Valentine (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rationale - from Template:Football kit/doc:

To create a new pattern template follow the examples below. When you have created a new pattern please add it to the list below. Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit.

This is why I changed the template used. The two examples you quote look pretty bad, and need to be reworked. If this kind of minor detail was added to every club's kit it would lead to a different template for every single one, making the Football Kit template virtually pointless. Dancarney (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but can't you just leave it. I mean it isn't like it is hurting anyone --Dirk Valentine (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, if these 3 are left then every other football club/team article will end up having these over-fussy images which are less clear and informative than the more simple versions. Dancarney (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dancarney. The kits should not include sponsor or club logos. – PeeJay 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly do something that looks relatively like the kits then, rather than just a normal generic kit for any team that plays in red, or are you to ignorant for that? --Dirk Valentine (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be rude and accuse people of ignorance, please at least try to use correct English. What you should have written was "too ignorant". You clearly are able to make football kit templates, so all that is required is for you to make a simpler version, i.e. without any club, manufacturer or sponsor logo. Good examples may be found at Middlesbrough F.C., for instance. Dancarney (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be pointed out that in the case of Crystal Palace, it was Dirk Valentine who made that kit so fussy in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the home shirt has been kept, despite being probably the most detailed kit i made. However i will be changing the kits in the near future, and i apologise for my very poor English. --Dirk Valentine (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left the body section of the home shirt as there wasn't a suitable template for the red & blue sash and I was anticipating that, since the issue had been raised at the Football Wikiproject talkpage, this would be quickly rectified. I felt that temporarily leaving the very fussy design was an acceptable temporary compromise. The changes that Dirk Valentine has now made to both the Charlton kits are exactly what's needed, and look very nice. Good work! Dancarney (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlton_Athletic_F.C.&oldid=219574918"