Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. managers

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:58, 29 December 2007.

List of Liverpool F.C. managers

Support as nominator. After the last submission failed, I have taken into account everything said, and improved the article, I now feel the article is at FL standard NapHit (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello NapHit, good work, but a few comments before I can support.

Use WP:HEAD for headings, i.e. no overcapitalisation.
"...to the present day" in lead and "as of October 3" in stats table.
Not vital but Tom Watson (footballer) should be used, not the redirect Tom Watson (football).
Remove spaces between citations and punctuation (e.g. [6])
"They were replaced..." implies they were sacked but then "The next manager, Don Welsh became the first Liverpool manager to be sacked..." contradicts it. Just needs ironing out.
"...club to a double of the..." - not just a double, The Double - consider capitalisation and maybe further explanation, like "...club to the League and FA Cup double..."?
"They won a treble..." expand what sort of treble, not a treble vodka for example!
Consider making "Caretaker" a note - this will drastically reduce the width of that column and improve the layout.
What happened between January 1951 and late March 1951?
Remove hyphens for seasons without honours.
"2 FA Cups" vs "FA Cup winner" - consistency needed, although I see what you're doing. If no-one else complains, no worries.
Template doesn't match table e.g. Ashworth - table says 1919 to 1922, template says 1920 to 1923... there may be others, worth double checking.

Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All comments taken care of, more welcome please NapHit (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, what about what happened between Jan 51 and March 51...? Also, what now happened between December 1922 and February 1923? Gaps are big enough to warrant explanation, even if it's a referenced caretaker manager situation. It may be worth making a note somewhere that the dates for most changeovers don't match and if games were played it was under some kind of interim management. Good work on the other comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have done the best I can but the fact of the matter is I don't know what happened, so I hope what I have done is satisfactory. NapHit (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to LFChistory (Ashworth), Ashworth left Shortly after overseeing home-and-away victories over his former club Oldham Athletic on Christmas Day & Boxing Day, LFChistory (McQueen) says he left Anfield for Oldham Athletic early in 1923, and according to Liverpool F.C., in February 1923 Ashworth left the table-topping side to return to Oldham. I'd guess lfchistory's 21.12.22 date was a typo, because it doesn't match any of those articles, so there probably isn't actually a gap at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Struway I'll change it now NapHit (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments;

I'm not a big fan of the history section. It's full of very short sentences which don't feel like they run into each other very well, not allowing the prose to flow.
There's no reference to Liverpool's fabled bootroom.
Possibly not essential, but there's no entry for Charity Shields in the table although they are mentioned elsewhere.
Why change between Division One champions and Division One championships in the table? I realise the former is for those who have just one win, but why not say 1 Division One championship?

Apart from those few points I can't see anything else except for what has been mentioned above particularly regarding the gaps. From personal experience I know how hard these can be to fill. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've improved the history section any more comments are welcome NapHit (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's lots better. Nice work. Just the addition of charity shields to the honours to do in my opinion. Although is there any explanation for the gap in manager from 1915 to December 1919? Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that gap is because of the First World War, I will add the Charity Shields now NapHit (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed so but id Liverpool not have a manager for wartime football? Plus league football resumed in September 1919. Peanut4 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Liverpool website it states there was no manager during the wartime period, so I can't addd anything there, nor does it mention a caretaker manager, so i will to leave it as it is NapHit (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks very good. Improvements made above look nice. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Some points at first glance;

a reference was needed for the famous bootroom (I added the one from the main Liverpool article, and also wikilinked to the article on The Boot Room) - although I still think the most important thing about the Boot Room is that it was where they stored the gin!
As we've recently been discussing with regards to the main article, I think it's essential that some mention is made of Phil Thompson's stint in charge while Houllier was recovering from heart surgery.

Done NapHit (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I would be of the opinion that the history section needs to mention Houllier's heart surgery.

Done NapHit (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you'd say Houllier was sacked - however, this requires a source, as the current reference you give doesn't use the term sacked - and the reference used for the main article says they "parted by mutual consent" (although one could ask whether this is just another name for the same thing)

DoneNapHit (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that both Fagan and Dalglish's reigns were "tinged with sadness" as a result of Heysel and Hillsborough respectively - I think this could be better written.

Done NapHit (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to mention that Benitez has won the Community Shield and Super Cup - those competitions are not mentioned for the other managers, so I'd say this is recentist.

Done NapHit (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you don't get much of a sense for the managers, their personalities, approaches to management, etc. from the history section, and as a result, it does seem a little dry - "x won this competition" and "y won this competition" is all very well, but people like Shankly were the greatest personalities in football, and I can't help but feel that any article which reduces them to the trophies that were won is missing a great deal - just my personal view.

Done NapHit (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robotforaday (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've given the Managerial history section a bit of a rewrite, to sort out some of the phrasing as I didn't think it was good enough quality of writing to meet the featured content criteria. Other than that, though, I couldn't see anything wrong with the article that hasn't already been mentioned. Good work guys. – Pee Jay 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Were Roy Evans and Gérard Houllier joint managers in 1998? If so, there should be a note just like for Barclay and McKenna. If not, then the reason why they were together should be mentioned.--Crzy cheetah 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done NapHit (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to support as soon as the notes are separated from the citations. Here's an example.--Crzy cheetah 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a clarification, is that actually a guideline or just a personal preference? It can be hard to keep track of these things on wikipedia. Personally, I think a footnote is a footnote is a footnote, and unless you're using Harvard referencing or something similar (which wikipedia articles don't normally use), citations and other notes are usually kept together... Robotforaday (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a trend. I've seen it in more and more articles/lists that pop up nowadays. It also makes sense to know whether a statement is cited or just explained more thoroughly before actually clicking on the footnote. Do I prefer it? Yes, I do. Is this just a personal preference? No, this is not.--Crzy cheetah 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seperated the notes from the citations, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, well done!--Crzy cheetah 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.