Talk:Team Bath F.C./GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Isn't the official title TeamBath F.C., not Team Bath F.C.?

There isn't much consensus on this to be honest. If you look at one of the society's own articles, the title uses "TeamBath" and the body uses "Team Bath"! In general though, the spaced out "Team Bath" seems to be the much more common usage. Harrias ^talk 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... after a decision by the Football Conference and The Football League that it would not be allowed to promote any further." It wasn't the club doing the promoting, so that isn't quite right. It's also a bit unfair to the readers to be left wondering why the club couldn't be promoted any further, if the reason is simply that it wasn't a limited company.

Happy to add the reason at the end of the sentence. As to your initial issue, can you suggest any wording that would clarify the sentence better? Harrias ^talk 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about killing both birds with one stone? Something like "The club disbanded after one season at this level, after a decision by the Football Conference and The Football League that it was ineligible for further promotion because it was not operating as a limited company"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally struggling to understand how a team with such poor attendances, that wasn't a limited company and therefore had no investors, managed to fund itself. Did it receive a grant from the university? Any sponsorship deals? Who paid the manager's wages?

They were funded by the university, but I recall now that I was struggling to find a reliable source for this, which was one of the reasons that I didn't initially nominate it for GA: it is, as you say, such a glaring omission. There are a few places I can look at and hopefully clarify this, but I'll understand if it is a sticking point. Harrias ^talk 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave you to work on that during the hold period, but I think the article needs to say something about the club's finances to meet the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conference South "Towards the end of the season, the Football League notified Team Bath that as they were not a limited company, further promotions would not be available to them ...". The letter seems to have come from the Blue Square Conference according to the source, not the Football League.

Good spot, fixed. Harrias ^talk 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... the club were two promotions away from The Football League." Not quite sure what that means. Two league places away from promotion?

Just a quick note that I'm now going to be on holiday until 29 October. Obviously, I would prefer it if you could keep the GAN on hold until I return, but I understand if you feel that it is too long to wait. I had hoped to resolve the remaining issues before then, but simply have not had the time. Regards, Harrias ^talk 21:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep the review open until you get back from holiday. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm trying to clear my desk so to speak, and so I've added a new section on the club's management and financing that I think is sufficient to meet the GA criteria. Given the nature of the club's financing I doubt that there's much more to find, so I'm closing this review now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.