Knowledge (XXG)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You use both "Luton Town have" and "Luton Town has" in the lead. Which one should be used?

Have. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• In "Managerial records", two parentheses are used directly after each other in the David Pleat sentence.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Periods should be used after full sentences in image captions such as "Curtis Davies was transferred from Luton Town to West Bromwich Albion for £3,000,000 on 31 August 2005"

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a problem with footnote C.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• A date in reference 26 needs to be unlinked.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TheLeftorium 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support -- The lead still needs expansion (brief summary of records) but otherwise Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, all sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support seems to meet the criteria now. One slight omission: please could you add a sentence at the end of the lead, or anywhere else suitable, which says something like "All records are correct as at the end of the 2008-09 season", or as at today's date, or whatever the case is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• The Robert Hawkes photo has a problem with the public domain tag. It claims "life of author plus 70 years", but the given author is the nominator. Given his recent activity at FAC and FLC, I'm confident that he's still alive. :-) If the author can't be found, it's no problem because it was clearly published in 1909. However, the tag may need switching.
• Spell out some abbreviations in the references—namely FIFA and RSSSF.
• Remove all caps from reference 65.
• American people is a disambiguation link. The article intended to be linked is apparently at People of the United States.
• Several Statto links are showing up as dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed – the Statto links were never broken, if you use them they go through fine. – Cliftonian 04:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489

Supporting as above; all of mine dealt with. Good stuff. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is encyclopedic, equable, well-referenced, coordinated, and useful. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Showtime2009 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Try to find a map showing the places of these skyscrapers. It's actually very interesting to the reader to know where these are and how they relate to one another. If u can't find any ask the graphics lab to create one for you.

I'm going to ask the graphics lab because I cant find one. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other than that keep up the good work.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More to do:

• center the numbers in the numbers in your tables, like in List of tallest buildings in San Diego
• Try to add more information in the notes column to buildings that don't have articles, because this would be the only place to find some info. Information like its uses would be useful.
• I think the lead is much better now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 7 shouldn't be in all caps.
• What makes http://okc.about.com/od/attractionsandevents/a/okcdevontower.htm a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Both issues have been addressed. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know about the images. I contacted a guy in Oklahoma City who says I can use them. I just sent him the declaration and hopefully later tonight he will agree so I can send it to the OTRS. Showtime2009 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fixed them myself. Nice work. -- ] 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I oppose or support here are a couple of comments.

• I recommend splitting the lead it seems a bit long and is extremely detailed to be the lead. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 72 appears to be a dead link. It gets a 404 error. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I shortened the lead and replaced the dead link. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work —Chris! _ct 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the length of the lead is fine; it's very detailed. Therefore, I support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Truco's resolved review. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – As a Yankees fan, I'm happy that this list turned out well. Took a couple of readings, but I think it's there now. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Though I still suggest you find a better reference for the Orioles sentence. -- ] 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments re - John McGraw - you might mention that he managed the rival New York Giants during the period the Giants dominated New York baseball.
• re Billy Martin - I'd like to see a total of how many wins, how many losses and what was his winning .pct as a Yankee manager, perhaps as a sum up of his record 5 times as Yankee manager. I suppose you can also sum up Houk, Piniella, Lemon, Berra, Howser and Gene Michael, but Martin's record is significant.
• re-ownership of the teams...A mention of the different periods of ownership would be helpful - The Steinbrenner era, the Pre-Ruthian Era, the Ruth - Gehrig - Dimaggio Dynasty, The Mantle - Berra - Ford Dynasty etc....Modernist (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I added a comment about McGraw's future tenure with the Giants. I did not go into detail about McGraw's Giants' accomplishments though, since that is already addressed in List of San Francisco Giants managers, where it better fits. I think the information you are looking for on Billy Martin's and the others' totals is included in the section List of New York Yankees managers#Managers with multiple tenures. I did not really discuss the ownership eras because, other than Steinbrenner, I don't think any are particularly important to an article about managers, and the lead is pretty long already. After all, Jacob Ruppert owned the team from 1915-1945, but the team didn't miss a beat after Dan Topping, Del Webb, and Larry MacPhail took over that year. Also, defining eras by player combinations is somewhat arbitrary. For example, Huggins basically covers the Babe Ruth era, McCarthy basically the DiMaggio era and Stengel the Mantle era - but Houk and Berra also managed Mantle championship teams, others managed DiMaggio championship teams, and Huggins did not manage Ruth's final championship team. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems to easily fulfill all the criteria. Ian Fahey (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): ---I'm Spartacus! 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the latest of the Poker articles for FL consideration. ---I'm Spartacus! 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - References need to be formatted properly. Some are missing publishers. Dates should be consistent. Publications need to be italized—Chris! _ct 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed---I'm Spartacus! 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ref 10 http://pokerworks.com/article-1081.html deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed dabs and ref.---I'm Spartacus! 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(Copied comment from the poker project where I asked for a second set of eyes a week or so ago.)

The article looks pretty good to me. One thing, the line "Currently, the Poker Hall of Fame is virtual in nature." needs to be clarified/written in language that everyone can understand. It threw me when I read it, especially since it was tacked on to the end of a historical summary of casino ownership of the HOF. I tried to fix it but kept getting the fizzing Beavis and Butthead light bulb. Hazir (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done---I'm Spartacus! 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I hope that the next FLC you submit is a better-prepared than this one. All the same, good job. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following sources reliable (apologies if I've brought these up before)?
  • http://www.professional-poker.com/columns/paul-mcguire/poker-hall-of-fame.htm

This is the one I have the most question about, I'll try to find another source for this.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Found better source.---Balloonman 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the replacement source? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

PokerNews.---Balloonman 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC) NOTE: should you have questions about PokerNews.com, you should read this Bluff Magazine] article wherein PokerNews entered into an agreement with the WSOP to provide ‘play by play’ updates and chip counts for publication on the worldseriesofpoker.com website, as well as on PokerNews.com. Bluff Magazine also writes, that PokerNews has garnered a reputations for providing what many in the industry consider the best poker tournament coverage on the web. Part of agreement for the WSOP was that they translate in "near real time" the coverage into the 23 languages used by PokerNews.com.---Balloonman 04:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Poker news has a similar agreement with the Aussie Millions tournament.---Balloonman 05:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/news/592/

While I think this source is OK, I'll try to find a different one for this.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated with more reliable source.---Balloonman 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the replacement source? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pokernews Also, this is common tale... one that could actually be argued to be common knowledge in the poker world.---Balloonman 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/pokerpages06.htm I think I might have let this go before, but this makes me wary.

Most magazines/companies have guidelines on how to be published. I mean, you can write articles for written articles for professional journals or Newspapers or whatnot. Having a criteria for submitting articles does not disqualify a source.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One other thing to note on the page, There is no set rate of payment for articles. Payment will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Payment will be issued via check only, without exception, at the end of the month in which an article was published. They are not asking for people to write for free ala a wiki, they are looking to publish reviewed content. The articles have to pass the mustard. Furthermore, the fact that they don't offer a set rate is a sign of a more credible magazine. I know some pages will pay X dollars per article and those are generally a little more dubious in nature.---Balloonman 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.ultimatebet.com/poker-news/2009/march/phil-hellmuth-new-official-web-portal

Ultimate bet is one of the biggest online casinos. I consider it a reliable, albeit not a top tier source.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with ESPN and PokerListings sources.---Balloonman 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=230

The hendonmob is one of the most respected databases of poker results.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick search on "according to the hendon mob" will generate over 130K worth of hits. The Hendon Mob was involved in a legal case a few years ago concerning their data base. It was with either Poker Listing or Poker Pages, but it is generally considered to be one of the more complete repositories of poker results available. MSNBC relies upon them as does

OK, should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.tightpoker.com/news/mike-sexton-deserves-place-in-pokers-hall-of-fame-1074/

This is from a subsidairy of Party Poker itself, and as it is referencing a campaign by PP, it is a primary source. But I added a second source.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.pokerlistings.com/player-interviews/the-press-conference-part-1-this-years-poker-hall-of-famers Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Poker Listings is an established source. Zero doubt in my mind about it.---Balloonman 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Poker Listing is one of the more respected online websites for poker information. Poker listing staff] are full time employees travelling and writing for Poker Listings. In addition, they have an array of high caliber "featured writers" whose reputations are beyond reproach. Nolan Dalla is notable enough that I have the intention of writing an article on him one of these days. He's been the official press officer for the WSOP for years and can be seen working the floor at WSOP events. (When Hal Lubarsky was eliminated last year, Nolla was the person who gave a short speech commemorating the achievement.) Aurthur Reber is another big name for his published works. As is Gary Wise (who does Poker Listing's Hand of the Day) and is ESPN's poker expert. I don't know if it means anything, but if you goto GoogleNews, it is not uncommon to see pokerlistings.com as the reporting website. NBC has cited PokerListings.com. Here is an independent (although I don't know how reliable) source calling Pokerlistings the world's largest online poker guide. Another source gave a review, What sets Pokerlistings.com apart from the jungle of online sites promoting poker sites is the sheer amount of relevant and qualitative poker information they offer. Pokerlistings routinely gets interviews with the games top stars---moreso than you would expect from a website that is not respected in the field. In short, Pokerlistings is one of the premier online sources for poker information.---Balloonman 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - made some fixes, but it looks good —Chris! _ct 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24

• Why is there an image of the 2007 Main Event WSOP Bracelet on the article? -- ] 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• The WSOP winnings aren't sorted properly. Also, why not use live winnings instead? -- ] 23:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the 80,000 one that was appearing out of order. I can't figure out why the 0's are showing up at the end as compared to the beginning when sorting. Any ideas?

As for why I'm using the WSOP totals there are two reasons. First, the Poker Hall of Fame is now directly tied to the WSOP. Both were acquired in 2004 by Harrah's Casino. Second, there is a little more authority in that total. While there are other sources that present life time earnings, there can be significant discrepencies between the amounts. According to various sources here is Doyle Brunson's lifetime tournament winnings:

The Hendon Mob = $5,819,350.

Cardplayer = $5,305,447.

Poker pages = $5,215,256.

Bluff Magazine = $5,065,582.

PokerListings = $5,049,331.

Each of those sources is a reliable source, but because they have different criteria on what counts towards the lifetime earnings and because earlier results are not as well recorded, there are discrepencies. By using the WSOP Lifetime earnings, we have an authoritative figure; and in this case the one that is now affiliated with the Hall of Fame. If the Hall wasn't under the WSOP I would probably use one of the other sources for lifetime earnings, but as is I think the WSOP is the best option.---Balloonman 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See this comment by Scorpion regarding the wayward sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorting fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get why Dabomb87 commented on an FLC on my talk page, when he already knows I don't like it, but ehh...I'll support once everything has been resolved. -- ] 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got everything covered to this point.---Balloonman 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand. How is the current post different from the previous titles that were abolished? Who selects the Sergeant Major? I'm not big on military, but I don't really see where the position/rank? fits in. You were more clear with the Commandant. Reywas92 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I will clarify that, just for info though he is appointed by the CMC. So when we get a new CMC shortly thereafter we will get a new SgtMaj also. From a rank billet standpoint, there are many sergeants major but only 1 sergeant major of the USMC at any given time.--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a bunch of info to the lead and added some more inline citations. Let me know if you have any more suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Much better. Reywas92 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Balloonman

• The transition from the second to third paragraph is very abrupt. In fact, I had to read it a few times to realize that Marine Corps Sergeant Major wasn't the titular predecessor to Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, but rather the first person with the title Sergeant Major.

I've done some re-wording, let me know what you think. bahamut0013_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overlink... USMC and Sergeant Major are overlinked in the lead.

Corrected. bahamut0013_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are no references for any of the Sergeant Majors or their tenures.

The general references points to it, do I need to add a reference to every single one?--Kumioko (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat new to the FLC review process. My understanding is yes, if there is a single source/a few pages in a book, you could put the reference on the column header. Of course, as a new reviewer I might be going overboard, so I'll leave this open to input from more experienced FLC reviewers.

Since the source is basically the same for all of them putting the ref in the column title is a really good idea. I haven't seen this done though so let me ask if that is acceptable.--Kumioko (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed a few FLs, I can say that general references are accepted for the list itself, unless the source differs for each listed item. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Each one has a biography on the History Division's website, I can have used those. bahamut0013_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• What can you tell me about any of them? Were any of them particularly notable? Did they do anything in their roles? Were any of these individuals notable on their own prior to being appointed?

There are a couple that have some notibiliy as the First or current or the first African American but not enough in my opinion. I actually added a column and then removed it because I only came up with notes for a couple and they where pretty weak.--Kumioko (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see something in the lead about some of them... especially, if say they helped institute significant changes in the Corps.---Balloonman 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not really part of the job description. They are primarly advisers to the leaders of the Corps, but don't act as policy-makers. They provide guidance, leadership, and advice to enlisted Marines, but don't actually have a hand in the leadership of forces. Whatever influence they do have on policy and changes is usually used behind closed doors. bahamut0013_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still not 100% certain I know what they do.---Balloonman 06:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I also created an article for Archibald Sommers although its a stub at the moment. Once I can locate more info on the fellow I will fill it in.-Kumioko (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for some expert help in this matter. bahamut0013_deeds 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Web title should not be in all caps (refs 4–19) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I just copied and pasted right out of the ref. bahamut0013_deeds 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No big deal I fixed it, --Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I still find the lead a little, well, unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have completely reconstructed it using the standard format for the other Medal of Honor lists and along with other contributors have gotten it to Featured List quality. Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3 needs a publisher and last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I removed this because it was basically a useless references anyway I and restructured the references section. I am also going to add a couple more references and expand the external links to include the publisher and access date. I also made some other minor changes that I noticed. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I added references for the Medal of Honor citations for each of the wars that are listed on the list in the general sections. 1 question though and that is, should I put the inline citations first or the general citations? I think the inline should come first personally. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support---Balloonman 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Link comments

• Medal of Honor should be linked in the first sentence of the lead.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• United States should not be linked per WP:LINK.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• African American should be linked on its first "appearance" in the lead, not in the last sentence of the third paragraph.

Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Medal of Honor is linked twice in the World War II section. Both links should be removed. TheLeftorium 12:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• More: World War II, United States armed forces, and "the Army" should be linked in the lead. TheLeftorium 13:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Balloonman, yes, either of those would be fine; I guess where space is tight, you might use the square bracket option, since that does show it as starting mid-sentence. Otherwise, a non-breaking space between ellipsis dots and "... in. I see quite a few quotations that might be mid-sentence starters (Smith, Veele?).

Just for clarification which is preferred, I can do the elipses or the square brackets, I just don't want to do one and have someone come back and say the other is preferred. Just FYI once clarified I will also carry these comments over to the other Medal of Honor list articles starting with the ones that are already featured.--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• It would work much better in terms of table layout to rob horizontal space from "Name" and especially "Date" to pay the "Notes" column.
• I've done a little cleaning up of the lead. "United States" three times in the opening sentence. Please check that it's "Army" but "armed forces" lower case. Plus other things. Next time, perhaps an independent set of eyes before nomination? It's an important list, culturally. We need to address this memory.``

Thanks, for the help, not sure what your saying about the Army, Armed forces comment could you clarify?--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Link to WW2: if there's a section of the WW2 article that is relevant, please pipe it there rather than to the entire, huge article.

I looked and I don't see anywhere better to pipe too. Please feel free to take a look yourself and if you see a good fit please feek free to make the link.--Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "several"—do we know how many? If not, fine.

Can you tell me where you are talking about on this one?--Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "the medal", but "Medal of Honor". Can you audit the use of upper and lower case? It should be lower if a generic reference, but here I gather there is only one medal at issue. Tony (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what your trying to say here either, could you clarify?--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if you are using Medal as shorthand for Medal of Honor, then it should be capitalized. If you are using medal to represent a generic medal that one might win, then it should be lower case. Think of the use of God vs god.---Balloonman 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Confused about ordering of rank - Engineer's cook appears to rank higher than First Sergeant. Is this correct? And what rank is "Contraband"?

Well contraboand isn't a rank he was a captured slave but this is what is reported as the rank on the oficial MOH citation. If you prefer I can move to the notes section but I think it is noteworthy to mention that the medal was received by a person who was formerly a slave. Especially in the context of this article. --Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea what contraband meant so a note would be useful for that specific "rank". As for the other "non" ranking ranks, I'd make sure they sort lower than the actual lowest ranks, i.e. below Private etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I fixed the sort order by making them zero. --Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no sign of a note for what contraband means. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I can. Just kidding. Of course I wouldn't bring anything here that I didn't think met the criteria, nor would I nominate it if I didn't intend to address the comments raised. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Just a couple comments though,

• The first reference isn't working. There are no Disambiguous links, the table formatting looks good, I checked it through AWB and there are no general fixes needed, all the references have good formatting and the lead seems like a good summery of the article. Not much on sports data but other than that it looks like a good list. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The reference does work. If you checked it through the external link checker in the toolbox, it shows up blue because the SI archives block bots and scripts. If you click through directly from the article, you can see the reference. Can you clarify what you mean by "not much on sports data"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry I was referring to myself regarding the data in the table. I wouldn't know if its correct. Sorry I should have been more clear.--Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. Thanks for your support! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support main issues resolved. – (iMatthew • talk) at 14:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Hall of Famers to win a Gold Glove"-->Hall of Famers to have won a Gold Glove

• Changed to "who have won"; seemed a bit less awkward. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The least errors committed in a winning season is five" A bit too ambiguous; make it more obvious that you are referring to third-base Gold Glove winners.

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• "only pair of brothers to win Gold Glove Awards"-->only pair of brothers to have Gold Glove Awards Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you meant "to have won"; done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I did, sorry for the error. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Very good, just as the others in the series are. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): --WillC 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... passes criteria, blah blah blah, everyone gets the picture, I've done this like 20 times already. Everyone knows the drill, you leave comments, I fix them. Say thank you because I'm grateful, tell you they are finished. Come back vote support, this list passes and I nominate another one. For the ones who understand that nonsense, you speak retardense, congratulations.--WillC 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comment. Recommend notes be filled in for the first table or else put emdashes. No disambiguous links and sources check out ok. I ran it through AWB general fixes and all was ok.--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Are Solie.org considered reliable sources?—Chris! _ct 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They have before. Check this for more information.--WillC 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Truco. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

cautious support

• As per discussions at FLc: CZW World Heavyweight Champions, I give this a cautious support if you find a way to clearly indicate tag team names in the prose. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Will do and thank you for the support. Sorry for being a bit difficult.--WillC 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• World tag team championship is linked twice in three sentences.
• "a wrestler has held the championship by himself—Justice Pain. Pain...". Notice the repetition at the end, and try to avoid having a word appear twice in a row like this.
• Combined Days columns in two tables aren't sorting properly.
• Decapitalize "Of Reigns" and Days in "Combined days" in section headers. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All finished.--WillC 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Scorpion 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another international hockey related list. this one is based on the recently promoted 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters (FLC). Enjoy. -- Scorpion 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support based on the comments from Dabomb87 Although this is a well formatted list I really feel like the red links should have articles if we are going to make this a featured list. Not sure if that is a requirement per sey but it seems to me to be a 3a and 5a issue. Aside from that there are no dab links, sources look good and the AWB general fixes check went good.--Kumioko (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Red links are not a valid grounds for opposition (although see this discussion). The lack of an article on a given subject does not compromise the quality of this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I changed my vote to support, however I still don't like the red links, I think we should either create at least a stub for the article or else not link them at all. Everyone knows that its fairly easy to get a list to FL status but when we have a bunch of red links on one, IMO makes it appear like an unfinished list. Just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment at the discussion on red links, I think linking people's names is very problematic. You may not think there is another person with that unusual name, but who knows? By creating links now, you create the potential for an article to be created for another person that is unrelated to the one that you've linked. In fact, by simply linking every name, you have at least two three links to non-hockey players here.---I'm Spartacus! 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone makes mistakes. For now, there is nothing about redlinks in the criteria, so I don't think your oppose is actionable. I believe that every name should be linked because, in theory, most of them are notable and deserve pages because they play in pro leagues and participated in a major international tournament. -- Scorpion 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • To I'm Spartacus: What you describe doesn't sound like a problem to me. Yes, there is always a chance of multiple people of the same name. But you can't really account for that when creating an article. That's why disambiguation and page move exist and are important.—Chris! _ct 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I'm going to let my oppose stand, if it is discarded, that's fine. But I don't think we should have people's names linked until there is an article. The problem with linking them in advance of an article is that we have no idea of who/when an article will be written or if it will be written on the correct subject. Disambig and page move are fine when dealing with two people who are of marginal notability, but when dealing with Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, and Roger E. Moore there is one which a casual search on the name should pull up, and then goto a dab. If a person comes in and writes a fairly long elaborate article on a notable architect, the odds are that you are more likely to see {{otheruses4|the golfer|the showdog|Tiger Woods (dog)}} than a page move and dabs created. I am very opposed to the use of linking to people's names for that reason. But you account for it by not creating a dead link. If the article doesn't exist, don't create the link, that way you don't have to worry about an article pointing to an unrelated person. To me this is an issue.
      • Either way, you do need to go through your links to make sure they are pointing to whom you think they are. The three I found were near the top. I looked at the bottom and didn't see any issues working up (through the swiss team I think.)---I'm Spartacus! 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just because they are notable enough for an article, does not mean you blindly create a redlink, that may or may not turn blue when an article on a hockey play/architect/poker player/criminal is created 2 years down the road. This is just asking for bad internal referencing.---I'm Spartacus! 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have gone through and fixed every misdirected link. -- Scorpion 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks... we'll have to agree to disagree about the redlinking, but I think it's wrong to relink people's names when there is no intention of writing an article on them in the near future.---I'm Spartacus! 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seeing how its pretty much a copy of 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters, only with more images. The redlinks issue is not a major concern. I've tried creating articles on European ice hockey players, and the amount of reliable English-language sources is limited. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although I didn't originally review the other, this is a great list with good information and lead. Please, don't feel the need to create articles just for the sake of having an article. People don't want worthless stubs that have only a single sentence like "XYZ is a hockey player for this team and played in this tournament" and the reference only mentions the name, especially if there are this many redlinks. Reywas92 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Can you add the legend from 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters? An ice-hockey newbie like myself have no idea what "A", "PIM", and "GAA" stands for. ;) TheLeftorium 13:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I knew I forgot to do something... Done. -- Scorpion 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 5–8 need PDF notices. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. As always, thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Once a player was registered to the team, they can not be removed from the roster." Tense issue here: singular (plural) matched with plural (they).
• Could link Rick Nash in the lead, though there is one next door in the photo caption. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Provisional support – One thing left: a dab link for Chris Mason. Everything else meets FL standards easily. The red links don't concern me, for the record. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 .

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Key section should locate above the list; see recently promoted sports list

OK, done.

I have to say, this doesn't make any sense to me. Why should anyone have to scroll down past a key that may or may not be of use to them before they get to the list itself? It's just daft. I say move the key back below the list. – PeeJay 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the key below. However, I'm not that fussed and am happy to go with whatever the official line is on the matter. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is short considered that the team began playing in 1885

If people want to know about the history of the team, then they can see the other pages on the club, surely? I deliberately wrote the lead to this page in the summary style, so as to get right to the point of the list of seasons. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is soccerbase.com a reliable source?

It is backed by Racing Post, the British newspaper. I would say it is reliable. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

—Chris! _ct 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Instead of emdashes, use endashes with spaces on either side, as is more common in Britain.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "wasn't" should be "was not"

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Some of the language in the lead paragraph seems quite awkward to me, but that's probably just my opinion.

I've re-written it, does it reach your satisfaction? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is it really necessary to indicate the top scorers' nationalities? Not in my opinion.

I thought it was of interest, and spent a great deal of time adding them. However, I've now removed them. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Why are competitions like the Kettering and Luton Charity Cups and the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup listed in the same table as the Football League Trophy, the Anglo-Italian Cup and the Full Members Cup? Even the Watney and Texaco Cups are pushing it a little.

I've cut it down to only those cups notable for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). (Majors + Watney, Texaco) Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other than those comments, this is a very good list, comparable with any other list of football club seasons. – PeeJay 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - My comments above have been dealt with well. I do think that the Key should be below the list, but I'm not going to oppose on that basis. – PeeJay 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Is "earnt" British English? Also, I'm not sure if "stormed to promotion" is formal enough for an FL. Otherwise, the page seems sound. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 17 is dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No its not, that's just how it appears with the script, but the link is up and running correctly.

• Support -- Previous issues clarified/resolved; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I saw: the lead is one long paragraph. Would it be possible to split it in two? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

• Lead. LTFC is a football club, not team.
• Link first promotion. And relegated, although it's the same wikilink.
• Key. (Rant alert!!!) There is no official line on where the key should go. The argument for having it at the top is presumably so the reader will see it before they get to the table, so won't have to keep scrolling down to it, to find out what things mean. If it's small, it's helpful to have it at the top, and there's a possibility the reader will remember what was in it so they really won't have to keep referring to it. If it's a screenful, as in this case, then the reader skips over it, or even if they do look at it, they'll be hard pushed to learn it by heart, so they'll have to keep flicking back up to it anyway. Which is no different from flicking down to it.
  I think perhaps reviewers of lists see things differently from readers of lists. If I'm reading a list-type article, only if a key-type item that I don't understand appears on a line I'm interested in do I even consider looking at the key. As a reader of a list, I don't need the key to be at the top. Rant over :-) ... but there really isn't a rule about where the key must go, so I'm not telling you where you should put it.

I don't personally mind, I just followed the comment above. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Table. Personally, I think lists of names (e.g. goalscorers) look better left-aligned, but that's a matter of taste.
• Those unlinked goalscorers notable enough for WP articles should be linked.
• The wording in the wartime gaps would be more accurate as "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the xxx World War".
• Footnotes. Letter M needs a source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, all fixed. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just on the linking of goalscorers, WP:REDLINK says that we shouldn't link to subjects which wouldn't pass the relevant notability guidelines, either WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE where footballers are concerned. Also, is your Fred Allen (1893/4) linked to the right bloke? if it is, please could you add his Luton details to the article, because I had no info as to what he did after he left Small Heath. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd think if they top-scored for the club, then they're probably notable... on the subject of Allen, there's nothing about him playing for Luton before 1892, so it seems likely to me that it's the same guy; he first played for Luton in the FA Cup in 1892 and left in 1895 after making six Southern League appearances. I'll add all this to his article. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the FL players are notable, but one goal in the 1886 FA Cup does not notability make, nor does doing anything at all outside a fully-pro league, unless there was an awful lot of press coverage, but I'm only pointing out the guideline in case you weren't aware. As to Allen, presumably your book has birth/death dates and places, previous club, something to confirm them as the same person? as Fred Allen's not exactly an unusual name? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll unlink a few then. On Allen, Bailey only gives these for FL players, while Collings gives only to players he deems "notable". He does, however mention in his prose that Allen was a "Birmingham native" and a "forward" – is this enough for you? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why not, Birmingham's only a little place... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be sarky my man – sod it, I'll unlink it for now and take his info off the player page until we can find some more info on it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I really wasn't intending to be sarky, but I can see how it might have come across like that :-( I'd have thought his being a forward called Fred Allen from Birmingham having joined one club soon after leaving another is sufficient circumstantial evidence for their being the same man. Honest. I'll put the info back myself...

• Support seems to meet criteria now, after a fair bit of work. Well done (that's not meant to be sarky, either). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Nice seasons list; my only further suggestion is to consider placing dashes in blank columns. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done the em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 .

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

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)

• 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • "Mike Newell emerged..."? Not sure "emerged" is the right word there. Try "was appointed" or a synonym.