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[edit]

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[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

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

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

All comments taken care of, more welcome please NapHit (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
Thanks Struway I'll change it now NapHit (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments;

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[reply]

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

Comments: Some points at first glance;

 Done NapHit (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done NapHit (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 DoneNapHit (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done NapHit (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done NapHit (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done NapHit (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

 Done NapHit (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be happy to support as soon as the notes are separated from the citations. Here's an example.--Crzycheetah 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[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[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.--Crzycheetah 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seperated the notes from the citations, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.
More