Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish football champions/archive1

Scottish football champions
This peer review discussion has been closed. The bare bones of this list was already present, but I've hacked it about into what I think is a potential FL, but I'd be grateful if some extra pairs of eyes could tell me if there's anything else I might need to work on.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from

 * Comment, looks great now, passes with flying colours in IE7, I'll try Safari later... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine in Safari too. Awesome! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quickie comments from
Rest of it looks fine. If you have time to spare and fancy some prose to pull apart, List of Birmingham City F.C. managers is available for peer review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think lists of names look tidier left-aligned, as is the default for text items, rather than centred.
 * do you think the columns with the club names need to be left-aligned, or just the scorers......?
 * if it was me, club names as well, but it's a personal viewpoint. some people like flags with everything, I wouldn't mind if flags were banned from football articles, that sort of thing.
 * The Scottish First Division table still doesn't sort properly, because of the colspan= for the war years.
 * I can't figure out how to fix that, any ideas............?
 * Four possibilities that I can think of, none of which are particularly satisfactory.
 * Messy, un-pretty. Keep the columns, put some wording in the middle column ("Second World War" and a footnote to expand on it, say), then put non-displaying high-values "ZZZ" or whatever in all the columns apart from the year, so that row always sorted to top or bottom, that'd work. Sorting on the year column would bring it back to its proper place. But it would look horrible when that row gets sorted to the top.
 * Less messy. Keep columns with wording in middle, as per #1, no need for high-values, put class="sortbottom" on that row. That will always sort the row to the bottom. The problem is the always: sorting on date column also sorts it to the bottom.
 * Leave that row out and put a footnote on the previous season to explain the missing years. Loses a bit of clarity doing that.
 * Scrap the sortable tables.
 * Are you sure the third place column is relevant? I know the English version has it, but it didn't when featured, and looking at the talk page, it appears to have been specifically excluded when the list was being prepared for FLC. Going back through the history, it seems to have been added by an anon without discussion or edit summary.
 * The NotW Annual, which I used as a source, certainly lists first/second/third for each season, I have no preference either way. I'll see what people think at the FLC, I'm happy to go with the majority view..
 * fair enough
 * Cheers for your comments, I'll have a look at the Blues gaffers PR tomorrow when I have a bit more time available...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * very kind, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)