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

The list waspromoted 02:17, 10 January 2008.

I've spent quite a bit of time knocking this list into shape. Soccerbase.com, which is unreliable for older data, has only been used for stats post-1999. Anyway, let me know what you think.........ChrisTheDude (talk)08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list, issues I had were cleared up in the Peer Review, well done!NapHit (talk)15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although I don't understand the sentence "Pulis also took the team to the final of the play-offs for promotion to the second tier of the Football League, now known as Division One, in the 1998–99 season." In 1998–99, Division One was the top tier ofthe Football League (as thePremier League has never been part of the organisation known as the Football League), in which case the sentence should read "Pulis also took the team to the final of the play-offs for promotion to the second tier of the Football League, then-known as Division One, in the 1998–99 season." However, if you were indeed referring to the second tier of the Football League, which wasDivision Two in those days, then the sentence should read "Pulis also took the team to the final of the play-offs for promotion to the second tier of the Football League, now known as League One, in the 1998–99 season," with "League One" linking toFootball League One, rather thanFootball League First Division. –PeeJay18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, and there is a factual issue. I'll leave it to CtD to come up with a phrasing, but the near promotion was to what is now the Championship. I would propose something like:Pulis subsequently took the team to the final of the play-offs for promotion to the [[Football League First Division|second tier of English football]], now known as "The Championship", in the 1998–99 season.Kevin McE (talk)00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CorrectedChrisTheDude (talk)07:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This list follows the format used in previously promoted association football manager lists. It appears well referenced and clearly recognises the Soccerbase and caretaker problems. I'd expect to support this nomination once the points below are considered.

• You may want to say when Clark got them back into the Football League.
  •  Done
• You may want to wikilinkpromotion (orrelegated) the first time it occurs. Also linkplayoffs (there are articles for each division).
  •  Done
• The P/W/D/L numeric columns would be clearer if centred rather than left-aligned, similarly the win percentage.
  •  Done
• You sayExact dates of appointment for many managers appointed during the summer break between seasons are not known, but don't actually supplyexact dates for any manager, even for recent appointments. Do you have a reason for not giving exact dates where known? If you're sticking with months, you may want to amend the note to sayExact months of appointment...
  •  Done I used months only as I thought it would look silly and inconsistent to have full dates only for the most recent few
• Would you consider using normal rather thansmall font size in the Honours column?
  •  Done
• If Onuora and Docherty was a joint appointment for five matches, should they appear in the list together for those five matches, and then Onuora on his own for the next five?
  •  Done corrected the stats too, which were out by one match.....
• Some of your Notes are missing full stops.
  •  Done
• Is the Independent article in the References section meant to reference something specific (start of Smillie's appointment, perhaps)? If so, shouldn't it be linked to that piece of information?
  •  Done
• Seeing as your NotW annual references include ISBNs, I've just had a serious look for one on my copy of 1996/7 and found it carefully hidden under a sticky label on the front cover. Am just off to amend a couple of reference sections elsewhere. Thanks for that! cheers,Struway2 (talk)10:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted a few, will do the rest later but really should get on with some work now :-)ChrisTheDude (talk)10:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All sorted now, I believeChrisTheDude (talk)11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now happy toSupport. Well done, cheers,Struway2 (talk)11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though I'm not a great fan of the start/end dates, particularly Summer 1906, etc. I know why they are such because of the reliability of sources but would like to see over time this be improve. Though it's not anywhere near a big enough problem to stop me supporting this entry. Also can you qualify the honours section by adding a year to the wins? Oherwise great list.Peanut4 (talk)15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added dates to the honours. If any more detailed information on the exact appointment dates of managers does come to light, I will certainly add it in.....ChrisTheDude (talk)09:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment very close to support (and apologies for missing the peer review) but a couple of things stood out before I can support...
  • "...was to hold the ..." why not just "held"?
  • You could accentuate John MacMillan's non-Englishness by adding "Scotsman" beforehand (just an idea)...
  • "Pulis was sacked immediately after this ..." seems odd since he just got promotion, is it worth trying to explain why (if there was any logic to it?)
  • [7] is the only note not placed in notes column, while I understand it relates to referencing the date, its positioning a bit anomolous with the rest of the article's notes.The Rambling Man (talk)11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All changed per your commentsChrisTheDude (talk)11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't wish to be awkward (would I?!) but now Pulis has a reason for dismissal and a potentiallly controversial one at that, it probably would be best with a citation.The Rambling Man (talk)11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, Done that :-)ChrisTheDude (talk)11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is then. Well done once again.The Rambling Man (talk)11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yep, can't find any problems. Meets criteria and follows precedent.Woody (talk)15:17, 8 January 2008 (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 inWikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.