Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Luton Town F.C. managers/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [1].

List of Luton Town F.C. managers

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I'm nominating this because I believe it's on a par with other Featured manager lists like List of York City F.C. managers. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • There is a very sudden jump in the prose between the management of John McCartney and Ned Liddell. It doesn't seem right for the text to talk about McCartney taking over as manager and then referring to "Ned Liddell's team". Also, it says that Liddell's team finished as runners-up in 1935-36, but the table says that the club had no manager during that season.
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph, you use an emdash when it would be more appropriate to use an endash with spaces either side. Instead of "Though Pleat moved on in 1986, success continued—Luton finished seventh during 1986–87", it should read "Though Pleat moved on in 1986, success continued – Luton finished seventh during 1986–87"
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the final sentence of the same paragraph, you use the word "saw" twice in quick succession. Perhaps instead of "A disastrous 2000–01 season which saw three managers saw a fall into the bottom division of the Football League for the first time since 1968." try "A disastrous 2000–01 season – in which three managers took the helm at the club – saw Luton fall into the bottom division of the Football League for the first time since 1968."
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mike Newell emerged..."? Not sure "emerged" is the right word there. Try "was appointed" or a synonym.
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of "in March 2007 Newell was sacked in disgrace", try "Newell was sacked in disgrace in March 2007". Also, was he really sacked in disgrace? The source says only that his contract was terminated with immediate effect, not that it was in disgrace.
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under Kevin Blackwell's bit, it should be "reins", not "reigns". Also, I would use a semi-colon between "on 16 January 2008" and "Former player Mick Harford".
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the table, where there is no manager, instead of putting "None", I would suggest using lower case and italicising, i.e. "none".
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should finishing as runners-up be counted as an honour? I would suggest not, and that runners-up finishes should be removed from the table. Also, what is the "Southern Professional Floodlit Cup", and what is the rationale for listing it with the Football League, FA Cup, League Cup, Football League Trophy and Full Members Cup?
Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comments – Note that these are from a quick glance and not an in-depth review of the writing.
  • I'm curious as to whether "sacked" is considered formal enough for a piece of featured content. It wouldn't be if for an American coach or manager list, but from what I've seen it does seem common usage in Britain.
Yes, it is. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also not sure about the use of "Catastrophic".
changed to "woeful". Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, use p. for single pages instead of pp., and have en dashes in the page ranges.
OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the website used for reference 43 have the right to reprint the Manchester Guardian Weekly article?
I'm not certain, but I doubt it; I've changed it to a cite journal ref just to be sure. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Finally took some time to give it a full reading, and all I found in addition to the capped comments was one stray word (actually a letter), which I fixed myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "They were founded in 1885,[1] and currently compete in Football League Two."
  • "The club appointed George Thompson as their first official manager in 1925, but he only lasted eight months." Remove "only". Change "but" to "and", as the first event did not contradict the second.
  • "to challenge for promotion" Is there anything you can link to for "promotion"? Not everyone understands the relegation system of football leagues. EDIT: I see you've linked this later down. Move the link up.
  • "during his eleven-year tenure"-->during his 11-year tenure
  • "but was sacked mysteriously in May 2003." "mysteriously" is a bit too PEACOCKy for me, maybe "but was sacked for no apparent reason in May 2003."?
  • Em dashes in the blank cells please (nationality column). Is there any reason why the honours and notes are unnecessarily typed in smaller fonts? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, comments all rectified. On the small font, it is done that way to be in line with other similar FLs such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers. I also think it looks best that way, on a personal note. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it makes it harder to read for those with visual impairments. In the grand scheme of things, accessibility is more important than visual appeal. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerbase is backed by the Racing Post, a British newspaper. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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]
    • I'd be happier if internal troubles intensifying had a source.
It does now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[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]
    • 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]
    • 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]
    • 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]
    • 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]
    • 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]
    • For consistency, wikilink The Independent.
Alright. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref currently #46. Fuccillo's spelt wrong.
OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[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]
    • "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]
So if a direct quote, it needs quotation marks. Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[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]
    • Where are the dates of appointment sourced from?
Bailey. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the figures sourced from?
Bailey. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And after 1997? Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the inline citations in the "notes" column on the right. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]
...That was tiring. There we go, should be alright now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[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]
    • 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]
Alright, I've sorted them. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinnear "sacked for no apparent reason": the reference doesn't even say he was sacked, just says he left when new owners took over. I'd have thought it wasn't uncommon for new owners to want to bring in their own people?
I've added another ref saying he was sacked. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still think "for no apparent reason" reads too much like commentary. Something like "was sacked by the club's new owners" is factual and still allows people to draw whatever inferences they choose.
OK, that's what I've put in. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more comments. Matter of personal taste, I know, but are you sure runners-ups in major competitions shouldn't go in the Honours column? I'd have thought for a club of Luton's size (that isn't meant to sound disrespectful) to reach the Cup Final was quite an achievement. I headed the column Honours and achievements, and then included all sorts of stuff...
I completely agree with you personally, but I was told above only to include honours. Oh well, I suppose people can see the List of Luton Town F.C. seasons page for things like that. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between being told to do something because it's a Manual of Style requirement and someone suggesting something because it's their personal taste. And the seasons list doesn't tell the reader which manager achieved what, and it'd be informative if this one did. But it isn't compulsory :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489* (a Brighton & Hove Albion fan who saw the JPT Southern Area Final last season ... sigh!)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
  • Now that the 2009/2010 fixtures are out, should Luton's current division be updated? I'm not sure what the protocol is in terms of updating promoted/relegated clubs during the off-season, but taking a random selection of other clubs' articles it seems that all now show their 2009/2010 division.
They shouldn't until 1 July. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Thompson sentence: slight informality ("wasn't") and repetition of "appointed" could be avoided by recasting it as, for example: "The club appointed an official manager for the first time in 1925. George Thompson took up the role in February, but left after an unhappy eight months."
OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duncan was sacked early on in the 1958–59 season".
OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your comments. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; all resolved. I thought there had to be some specific date when it changed, but I couldn't see it in the WP:FOOTY Manual of Style. Changing on 1st July is fine by me, accordingly. I tend to agree with Struway2's comment above about the use of "Woeful"; a direct quote from the source, or the use of a word such as "Poor", would be better. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is now "poor". Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting as above. I like the addition of the "scalded by the experience" quote, by the way; it neatly expresses how overwhelming the job of football manager can be (not that I speak from experience!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
    • The other LTFC list I just reviewed said LTFC was just a football club, this one says an association football club. While not directly related to this specific FLC, I imagine your aim is a WP:FT, so consistency across the articles/lists would be a good thing.
    • Odd place to split to paragraph 2, you start talking about the original playing staff in the intro para then move to para 2 to discuss the original management. Would make more sense (to me) to keep this information together.
    • Link "manager" to Coach (sport)
    • "an unhappy eight months" is this a quote? Why unhappy?
    • "Jimmy Ryan prevented relegation..." not literally. Under his leadership the team avoided being relegated.
    • "five year spell " should some/all of that be hyphenated?
    • "Internal troubles at the club started to intensify ..." I know you're trying to provide a good synopsis but this is really too vague for me to follow.
    • I presume this list will be updated on 1 July to reflect the fact that the club have been relegated? Will you also expand the lead a bit to include the manager(s) who led the teams out of the league?
    • "took up the reins" is a little journalistic for my taste.
    • "highlighted in italics" - somewhat ironic that italics is not in italics here?
    • I think you should force the "none" to sort last so the actual managers are sorted correctly.
    • Same comment about Collings' book as in the seasons FLC.
    • Ref 14 links BBC, ordinarily I'd use BBC Sport and not link it.
    • I avoid linking works but that's personal taste.
    • I would have thought Category:Luton Town F.C. managers is a sub-cat of Category:Luton Town F.C. so you don't need it.
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all sorted Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 07:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Luton_Town_F.C._managers/archive1&oldid=1138482996"