Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1950–51 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 March 2023 [1].

1950–51 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. for your perusal. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PCN02WPS[edit]

Just a note that this is my first FAC review. I will be adding comments soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below - apologies if they are a little wordy. I will do another read-through and take a look at the references soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "at the third tier of the English football league system" → replacing "at" with "in" sounds more natural to me (assuming from the "Background" section that the league is not the only one in the third tier)
  • "which would remain" → "which remained" (an essay, granted, but I like to follow WP:WOULDCHUCK for cases like this as I catch myself doing it quite a bit)

Background and pre-season

  • "other member clubs in the ballot" → "on the ballot"
    • That would be incorrect - the member clubs who voted were not on the ballot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each of the two Third Divisions" → I suppose there's not anything wrong with this grammatically but "Third Division leagues" reads a bit clearer
  • The full stop at the end of the Cox quote should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ as it both ends a full quoted sentence and the sentence containing it
  • "Priestfield" is mentioned here, since it's the first mention in the body, expand and link here and unlink mention in next section

Third Division South

  • "New signing Jenkins made his debut" → this sounds like it's missing an article ("The new signing Jenkins") or could use rearranging ("Jenkins, [another] new signing", or something similar)
  • "would not play again" → "did not play again"
  • This might just be customary for BrEng or football specifically, but "draw [away/home] to __" and "won [at home/away] to __" sound strange to me - I'd rather opt for "draw with" and "defeated" or "won against"
  • "The correspondent for the Western Daily Press" → "A correspondent"; at present, wording implies that reader should already know who the correspondent is or that they only had one
  • "at least twice the three goals they achieved." → this is worded a bit awkwardly; I understand what this means but it took me reading it two or three times to get it
  • "for the first time since the start of the season" → I would reword this since it implies they won 2 straight to start the season
  • "above three teams" → "above the three teams..."
  • "played away to Nottingham Forest" → similarly to "draw"/"won" comment above, this wording sounds strange to me, though it very well could be a product of my disposition toward AmEng
  • "final sixteen days of the year" → specify "calendar year" since "year" could also be interpreted as "season" in this context
  • I don't think the details of the 30/12/1950 Millwall match is necessary since Gillingham's record to end 1950 is given in the sentence prior and discussion related to that resumes with "and ended the year..."
  • "Gillingham scored three times to win the game 3–1" → "Gillingham scored three times" seems redundant since it's given right before the scoreline; perhaps "Gillingham came back" or "Gillingham recovered", or something to that effect?
  • "Gillingham took a 5–2 lead in the first half" → this is presented as the score at half time so saying "took a 5-2 lead into half-time" flows better with the follow-up about their second half goals
    • Current wording is more common/standard British English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and would remain" → "and remained"
  • "The team ended January 22nd in the table" → A reader not paying close enough attention might misconstrue "January 22nd" as a date, so this might have to be reworded slightly
  • "which would keep him out" → "which kept him out"
  • "as of 2009 he remained" → this statement is outdated; either update to "as of 2023" using {{As of}} or update with info about who accomplished the same
    • Nobody has accomplished the same, I know this for a fact, but the only source I have that categorically states "Hales is still the only player to have scored a hat-trick on his debut" is from 2009. Short of adding an individual reference to the playing career of every one of the 100+ players to have debuted for the club since 2009 to prove that nobody else has done it, I can't see a way round this, unfortunately. The only alternative to the current situation would be to remove the claim totally, which would be disappointing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a good point, in that case just replace "as of 2009" with {{As of|2009|lc=y}} and we should be good with that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aged nearly 40" → Is there a reason this isn't simply "Aged 39..."?
  • "which would stand" → "which stood"
  • "but been kept out" → reads better as "but had been" even if "had" is given earlier in the sentence

Cup matches

  • "namesake mining facility" → using something like "eponymous" sounds better to me
  • Are the abbreviations for a penalty and an own goal necessary in the FA cup results table where neither happened?

Players

  • "Goalkeeper Day" → this sounds a little odd, I'd either remove "Goalkeeper", add his first name, or both
  • "would prove to be" → proved to be

Aftermath

  • Delink and remove first name for Jackie Carr since he's mentioned and linked in the FA Cup section
  • "but never played a game at the higher level before moving on" → does this mean he didn't play for Brentford or that he had never played a Second Division game before going to Brentford?

@PCN02WPS: - many thanks for your review. All addressed other than where noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck all but one that you didn't change - only I've left is the "as of" which is a relatively easy fix from here. The referencing and citation format look great - nothing that I can find an issue with there. My only other question is whether Thomas needs two links in the infobox since he's the top scorer in the league and in all comps, or if the link can be taken off of the second mention. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: - done! :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome! Very impressive stuff, best of luck with the rest of this nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PCN02WPS: - sorry to trouble you, could you confirm if the above includes a formal source review pass? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

All book sources are AGF so I can't spotcheck those but I will spotcheck some of the online references:
  • Ref 4: "The club's fifth application was unsuccessful; Ipswich Town of the regional Southern League received more votes than Gillingham from the Football League's other member clubs in the ballot following the 1937–38 season and thus secured election to the Third Division South." looks good except for "The club's fifth application", which is not mentioned in the newspaper clipping, but may well be mentioned in Refs 2 or 3, which are both offline.
  • That's indeed covered by the refs at the end of the previous sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20: "Ahead of the new season additional terracing was erected at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, to increase the stadium's capacity to 30,000." Verified.
  • Ref 23: "Colchester's Harry Bearryman twice cleared shots by Gillingham players off the goal-line after they had eluded his goalkeeper and another shot from the home team hit the cross-bar of the goal; the final score was 0–0." Verified.
  • Ref 32: "A week later, Dave Thomas, a centre-forward newly signed from Watford" Verified.
  • Ref 42: "Gillingham took a 5–2 lead in the first half and added four more goals in the second half as the game finished 9–4. A report in the Birmingham Gazette noted that both teams' defences had been "over-run by fast-moving forwards"." Direct quote and final scoreline verified but clipping does not give exact halftime score, only that seven goals were scored in the first half.
  • Covered by what was ref 44. I have duplicated that at the appropriate point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: "The team were 22nd in the table at the end of the month." The reference shows them 23rd, behind 22nd place Watford by a single point, after close of play on 31 Jan
  • Ref 64: "In the second round, Gillingham played away to fellow Third Division South club Bristol Rovers. Thomas gave Gillingham the lead before Rovers scored twice; a late goal from Jackie Carr meant that the game ended in a draw and a replay was required." Verified opponent and game happenings but replay isn't mentioned in the clipping - if you consider this to be common knowledge not needing a source, I can strike this
  • I would say the fact that the article immediately goes on to describe the replay (and ref 65 explicitly includes the word replay) can be taken to cover the fact that a replay was required -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting looks good to me. Are OCLCs required or recommended for books or just for other works? Other than that no sourcing issues. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PCN02WPS: - thanks for the above. I have no idea what an OCLC is, can you advise.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, it's just another alphanumeric string used to categorize works, in the same vein as ISBN numbers; I can't find the OCLCs for a lot of the works used, though, so I wouldn't worry about it. Other fixes are good, source review passed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "prior to the season the club was elected". Perhaps 'prior to this season the club was elected'?
  • "Gillingham climbed to 19th". Which doesn't mean much if one is not told how many teams were in the division. Perhaps this could be moved up from the end of the paragraph? Or 'fifth from bottom'?
  • "So as to be able to attract new players for a higher level of football". Maybe "a" → 'the'?
  • "performed well for the reserve team of a ..." Should that be 'teams'?
    • I don't think so, as each had (as far as I can see) only performed well for the reserve team of one club. To say "each had performed well for the reserve teams of a League club" or "each had performed well for the reserve teams of League clubs" would be inaccurate IMO (the second one possibly slightly less inaccurate but still inaccurate IMO....)
  • "to increase the stadium's capacity." Is it known what to or from?
  • Is it known why Gage was replace towards the end of the season?
    • I'm afraid I couldn't find a source that gave any specific reason. Presumably because he had not been playing well in the run-up to being dropped, but that would be an assumption. The only newspaper source I found that addressed the fact simply says "that excellent veteran Johnny Burke has been recalled to the last line of defence", which doesn't tell us much......
  • "but never played a game for them". Suggest 'but did not played a game for them'.
  • References: why are some article titles in title case and some in sentence case?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - many thanks for taking time to review the article. All points addressed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Just to let you know, I had one more sweep and managed to find a figure for the new capacity buried at the bottom of an article I had previously looked at but somehow missed that nugget...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat[edit]

  • You have two sections named Match details: per MOS:HEADINGS this shouldn't be the case. maybe "League match details" and "Cup match details"?
Background and pre-season
  • "2021),[11][12] Half-": is that supposed to be a full stop, or is it a rogue capital H?
August–December
  • "the three which they achieved": just "the three they did" is better
  • "with a penalty kick and gave": "which gave"?
January–May
  • "Following this run, however, Gillingham achieved": "they achieved" is OK here
  • "a week later Gillingham drew": they is OK here too (it's clear who the subject is in this list)
  • "24 March, Gillingham beat": they
  • "as of 2009": was this record broken in 2009, or is that the most recent source you can find?

That's my lot - nicely done, with just a few queries from me. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - many thanks for your review. On the last point, see my response to PCN02WPS above. All other points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame about the 2009 point (I guessed that was probably the reason), and I hope some reliable source publishes an up to date piece about it for you! Nice article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are properly licensed and appropriately used.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Some of the tables are missing incorporated captions. You can hide them with Template:Sronly if they are duplicative of above text/heading. Heartfox (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 7 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1950–51_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1144125810"