Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1912–13 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 October 2023 [1].

1912–13 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With 25 successful FAC nominations to date for seasons in the history of my favourite football club, and one looking like it's bearing down on goal with only the keeper to beat, here's number 27. This was technically the very first Gillingham F.C. season, as it was the first under that name, but like most of the seasons in the club's history up to this point it didn't produce much in the way of success. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

"Gillingham also competed in the FA Cup; after holding Barnsley, the previous season's winners of the competition, to a draw at home in the first round, Gillingham were defeated in a replay at Barnsley's ground." I might divide the sentence after "Cup". Also, should Oakwell be piped?
"The name change would not be formally approved by the shareholders until the following summer but nonetheless the team played under the new name in the 1912–13 season.[6]" Perhaps rather than "but nonetheless", substitute a semicolon for "but"?
"The team ended a six-match winless run by defeating Coventry City 2–1 away from home on 16 November" Do we need "from home"?

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review, all should be done now! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

and began October with two away games, losing 2–1 to Reading and winning 2–0 away to Bristol Rovers -- perhaps you can take out the second instance of "away" as it is preceded by a mention that these two are the away games in October.
On Christmas Day -- might be worth linking for context that it happened December 25th
That's all I got. As usual, another well-written work out of your Gillingham series. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Impressive prose as usual- don't seem to be issues there, so I'll do a source review. No spotcheck. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
Ref 3 needs author (look at bottom of webpage)
It looks like most (if not all) of the newspapers.com citations are to clippings. Anyone can view these clippings, so the lock icon isn't needed. If it linked to the paper itself, it would require login, but viewing just the clippings is not exclusive

ChrisTheDude, I got nothing else, nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - thanks for your review, all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - wow, impressively fast, I appreciate that! BTW, if you get extra time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FAC- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - sure, I will do my best to take a look over the weekend. BTW, can you clarify if you are both supporting on prose and passing the source review? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, you think I'd know to clarify by now... support on prose and pass source review MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NØ[edit]

Dick Goffin is linked twice somewhat closely in the September-December section.
I believe this sentence should not have a comma: "Gillingham began the season in poor form, and did not score a single goal in their first six home matches."
"Two days later, two goals from Lee secured a 2–0 win away to Stoke, whom the reporter for The Western Times said were "lamentably weak" - Are you sure this should be "whom"? Unless I'm wrong, if it's referring to the goals it should be "which" and if it's referring to Lee or Stoke it should be "who"(?)

Great work and a fun read. If you fancy reviewing one of mine, I have nominated another Meghan Trainor album above.--N Ø 17:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review. I fixed the first two. In the third instance, "whom" is correct, because Stoke is the object of the verb. See here, where it says "How can you tell when your pronoun is the object of a verb or preposition? Try substituting the subjective-case pronoun he, she, or they for who or whom And then try substituting the objective-case pronoun him, her, or them. If he, she, or they fits, you should use the subjective option: who. If him, her, or them fits, you should use the objective option: whom. Keep in mind that you may have to temporarily rearrange the sentence a bit while you test it." If you rearranged the sentence and replaced Stoke with a pronoun, it would be "the reporter described them as...." not "the reporter described they as....", so per the above, "whom" is correct. Anyway, thanks again for the review, and I definitely plan to take a look at your latest Meghan Trainor FAC quite soon (was intending to do it last night but got dragged to Ikea - fun fun fun!!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--N Ø 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work again. I’m enjoying this series of articles you’re pulling together. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: - thanks! I should hopefully have another one ready to go by the time this one is closed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Priestfield1906.jpg seems to erroneously list you as the enwiki uploader in the Author parameter even though it actually seems to be hosted on Commons and the uploader is someone else.
Is there a reason the above file can be hosted on Commons but the other files say they should not be copied there?
AGF on File:GillinghamvSwindon1912.jpg, File:JackMahonGillingham.jpg, File:JohnBoden1912.jpg as they do seem to have been published before 1928 and thus seem to be appropriately licensed.--N Ø 12:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @MaranoFan: Re: Priestfield1906, it says I uploaded it to enwiki, which is correct. Someone else then copied it across to Commons. I'm not sure why it now seems to show in both places with the same info???? The others probably could be copied across as the photographers also seem to be unknown -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is quite odd and might be why image reviewers have been shying away from taking this one. If the other three images can be copied to Commons then the "{{PD-US-1923-abroad}}" tag should be replaced by "{{PD-US}}{{PD-UK-unknown}}". That should probably be enough for a pass here.--N Ø 20:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @MaranoFan: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - The image review passes, taking other lists in the series as a reference. Regards.--N Ø 20:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - with this one having five supports and both reviews passed, may I nominate the next in the series? Thanks in advance! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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