Talk:Scottish Premier League

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Illusion Flame in topic Redundent Page

Requirements for good articles

change
  • The article must be about a subject which belongs in Wikipedia. There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary...

  Done

  • The article must have a certain length. A minimum is 3.5 kilobytes, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. There is no use in denoting very short articles as good.

  Done - article has 7.17 Kb of text according to this as of 08:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

  • The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.

  Done

  • The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.

  Done

  • The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).

  Done

  • All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. Red links point to articles that do not exist yet. Usually the important word or phrase is only linked the first time it occurs.
  • If there are any illustrations, they must be pertinent to the article. They must also be properly labelled.

  Done

  • There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them.

  Done

  • Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications.

  Done

Clarification

change

This article need some work.

There has been some criticism of the Old Firm, due to the fact that they hold such a strong position in Scottish football.

This sentence is uncited, and is vague. Why is it a problem for them to hold such a strong position in football?

they still cannot compete with other leagues for players due to the financial position of the SPL

"Financial" is complex, and I'm not sure how to reword it. That particular line is also uncited. It seems like they have too much of a strong domestic league? That seems like a lot of money.

That was a quick run, i'll probably get more to it later. Cassandra 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I have updated it a bit, added a source. :) ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 07:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

PVGA comments

change
All checked. Some wren't up to date. Others need refs. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The two links don't include that information. Needs a new ref. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll do a more thorough review when these have been addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks TRM, I've added some comments above and will look into the rest. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
More from TRM

And fix the other issues I've already noted! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed most of these. Others coming up. Yotcmdr =talk= 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eptalon's review

change

Blurb/Intro

change
  • The second paragraph of the intro in its current form is incomprehensible, and should be reworded; First sentence seems to be about popularity, and really needs to be reworded. From the second sentence on, I don't understand it at all; "leagues" are rated based on the scores of perhaps 3 or 4 clubs' results (out of the 16 or so)?
  • Also make a difference between clubs from the league playing each other, and such clubs playing clubs which are not in the league.
      Fixed Pmlineditor  11:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

History

change
  • Can we have a a neater separation into how it was before the change in 2000/2001 and afterwards.
      Not done Nothing about it on enwp, not much important either, imho.
  • For the sake of completeness, it would be good mentioning reasons for the redesign of the system.
      Done
  • The Winner of the first SPL...for Celtic) reads like a section of "fun facts"; if they stay they should probably be moved to a "(Sub)section of their own"
      Fixed Pmlineditor  11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Competition format

change
  • In League we learn that the season is from Oct. to May. In Winter break, it is said that the SPL decided to stop the Winter break, forcing players to play in January. Can we get this info perhaps a bit more compact, and not contradicting? ;)
    How is it contradicting? Pmlineditor  11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Shouldn't third placed have a hyphen between the words?; In general for results: first number, space, hyphen, space, second number, forgetting one of the two spaces looks funny. Alternative would be first score, colon, second score (perhaps with space before and after the colon).
      Fixed Pmlineditor  11:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • To refer to the seasons, wouldn't 2005/06 look better than 2005-06?
    The latter is the approved form. Pmlineditor  11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sponsorship

change
Media coverage
change
  • Old Firm gets its own section, the others just get a list?
    Most important, influential. Pmlineditor  12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Past teams: Can we get a table, perhaps with played from, to, and the reason for quitting?
      Done

That's about all I can think of, for the moment. Note: I am not into football, so don't ask me about the content. --Eptalon (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks like I've done everything other than the redlinks. Pmlineditor  12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Redlinks   Fixed. Pmlineditor  12:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ref #2

change

The claim that more % of the population watch football in Scotland than any other country in Europe, and its supporting ref, are ambiguous. Does it refer to the numbers standing on the terraces or the numbers watching on TV? The ref itself is a bit weak. Surely there must be statistics from the SFA that could be quoted? Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

While we're here...

change

Some notes that need to be addressed to ensure this keeps VGA...

  Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Need to be fixed, I'd hate to see this at WP:PAD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to fix these (hopefully) with the help of other editors. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

'Split'

change

The league split is where during the season the league is divided into two sections. This is controversial and very different from the English Premier League. It should have its own section, and be explained carefully. At present it is tucked away in the 'History' section. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its also explained in the 'League' bit, but I've started a small section to itself. Ydennek (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but it's not made clear why this issue is so important and controversial. It is an example of why the article is at present not VG, never mind VGA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Redundent Page

change

This page is an out of date copy of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Premiership much better page and should be removed. Eoghankll (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It doesn’t matter. This is SIMPLE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, not ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. Illusion Flame (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Scottish Premier League" page.