- Lead. Should say something about how the club was managed before Thompson's appointment.
- OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'd be happier if internal troubles intensifying had a source.
- It does now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Table. Presumably "all first-team matches" means "all competitive first-team matches"? and that includes Anglo-Italian and other such comps as well as League/FA Cup/League Cup? I worded it "All first-team matches in national or international competition are counted, except the abandoned 1939–40 Football League season and matches in wartime leagues and cups", which would include AngloIt/Watney/FLT/FMC etc but exclude County Senior Cups and suchlike, if that's any help.
- OK, I've used your example Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Layout. Would be cleaner if you replaced the tiny-print words in the notes column with footnote links, then in the footnotes you could explain what the words mean.
- OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- MoS used to say, and possibly still does if I could but find where, that for reasons of accessibility we shouldn't be using reduced fonts without a good reason, and personally, I find that size print almost unreadable; the size used in reference sections is bad enough :-) Even in tiny font, David Pleat's one honour takes up six lines at one word per line, at 1024x768. If you abbreviate Matches/Won/Drawn/Lost to M/W/D/L and provide a small key above the table, there'll be enough width to use normal font.
- OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Can you be more specific as to who or what performed managerial duties in the periods currently marked "none": i.e. committee, or directors, or secretary and captain... For instance, Luton seem to have gone through almost the whole of the 1958/59 season without a manager. Surely your books mention who was doing the job?
- The club was managed by commitee – I'll add some footnotes Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This isn't a requirement, obviously, but consider making an article for Charlie Watkins, he looks quite lonely as the only entry without one.
- I will do at some point. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- References. According to the cite template documentation, publication dates should be in the same format as that used in the body of the article, i.e. international rather than ISO, but I don't know if that's insisted on at FLC, it's a long time since I've reviewed here with any regularity.
- I don't think it really matters that much, but if anybody else mentions it I'll happily go through and change them all. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- For consistency, wikilink The Independent.
- Alright. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Ref currently #46. Fuccillo's spelt wrong.
- OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Ref currently #43, Manchester Guardian Weekly. For consistency, page number needs a letter p.
- OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Struway2 (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "Woeful" is a touch emotive/POV, unless it's a direct quote from your source.
- OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- So if a direct quote, it needs quotation marks. Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- For clarification: in references, the work should be italicised but the publisher shouldn't. Newspapers are works, not publishers; with the publisher included, it should read something like The Independent. Independent News & Media. The cite templates do this automatically, without you needing to add any markup, so
((cite web |url=http://xxxxx |title=title |work=Soccerbase |publisher=Racing Post)) would generate the correctly-formatted "title". Soccerbase. Racing Post. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Where are the dates of appointment sourced from?
- Bailey. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Where are the figures sourced from?
- Bailey. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- And after 1997? Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- From the inline citations in the "notes" column on the right. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems a little odd to me, if Bailey's manager stats are supposed to cover all competitions, that they align quite so closely to Soccerbase. You're no doubt aware of "the Soccerbase problem": that it's reliable within its limitations, but it has limitations: 1) they only started covering the Football League Trophy in about 1997/8, and never covered the Full Members Cup, AngloItalian, etc etc at all; 2) if they don't know the exact date of a change of manager, they assume first/last of a month, and count accordingly; 3) a disclaimer on each Soccerbase manager page reads: "NB: Only games with a date in the database counted here". If you look at Luton's results/fixtures page for the 1981/82 season, not to go too far back, you'll see there are no dates for League Cup or even FA Cup games.
Taking specific examples, easily checkable because the time periods don't involve part-seasons:
David Pleat's second spell, four complete seasons from 1991/2 to 1994/5: You give 202 games played, presumably from Bailey, but so does Soccerbase. Going to their fixtures/results pages for the seasons in question, they list 202 games in the Football League, League Cup and FA Cup only. But Luton entered other competitions during these seasons, which Soccerbase wouldn't count, but presumably Bailey should?
Or Neil McBain: Soccerbase has him leaving in January 1939, after being in charge for 23 games. You have him in charge for the whole season, but still those 23 games...
Or 1959/60: Between Syd Owen's 39 and the committee's 3, Luton played 42 games, which is how many there are in the league programme. No FA Cup? Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Strewth, you're right! I'd (foolishly) assumed the Bailey figures would line up... right, I'll have to go through and correct them, good spot! Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ...That was tiring. There we go, should be alright now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Still not totally convinced, I'm afraid. Owen/committee seem to have too many games now, and McBain's only got enough for the FL. Bailey may have errors, or it may be counting things that you don't realise it's counting, or I may be missing something, or you may be in a bit too much of a rush, but there do still seem to be errors of content in there. Don't suppose you've got anyone at home prepared to proofread your figures? because I know how difficult it is to check one's own.
- I've resolved both of the comments you made there – the reason for the Owen/commitee problem was that I'd done those figures previously from Bailey and included the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup, which I do not now include. In McBain's case I had left out the FA Cup for some reason, but this is now fixed too. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Also, shouldn't all time periods without formally-appointed managers have lines in the table? Like the time before Thompson's appointment, and the two-year gap afterwards?
- I wouldn't think it'd be necessary before his appointment (this is a period of forty years!) – but I'll add one after. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Alright, I've sorted them. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|