Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1982–83 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 January 2024 [1].

1982–83 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings, O denizens of FAC. Here is my holiday gift to you - yet another bloomin' Gillingham F.C. season article. I hope you enjoy it. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! Ho ho ho!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Suggest merging the 2nd paragraph of the background section into the 3rd, since it seems to be two sentences only.
  • the reporter for the Sunday Mercury contended that -- maybe this can be a separate sentence.
  • Three days later they beat Orient -- comma after Three days later
  • Two days later they began a run -- same as above
  • Brilliant work on your Gillingham series, as always. Not much to quibble and very well-written as we would expect. Hope you're enjoying the holidays! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review - all done! And yes, the out of office went on yesterday lunchtime and all is good. Hope all is well with you too! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number formatting for the 16 October '82 attendance at Cardiff City is different than the others
  • "Bruce and Adams were both voted into the Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year for the Third Division by his fellow professionals" - by their fellow professionals?
  • Recommend consistency with linking publishers in the sources and with linking or not linking the publishing locations
  • Recommend including publishing locations for all sources if feasible
  • I see no obvious concerns with source reliability (although I did not conduct a source review)
  • No red flags for images

I'm going to go ahead and support; none of the minor issues I noticed would keep me from supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for those who are wondering, I did cross-reference the results table to the article body for consistency, and also recalculated the goals for and against; noted no issues. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - thanks for your review - all addressed! Re: the works cited, all publishers are linked which have articles, and all locations are linked bar London, which I believe doesn't need to be linked per whichever guideline it is that says not to link extremely well-known places -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Nice to see some big names early in their careers. Very little for me to complain about here:

  • ”one victory in the first 14 games” -> fourteen games, per WP:NUMBERS
  • ”Six wins in the final 11 games” -> eleven games
Third Div
  • ”A week later, Ken Price...” This is a bit of a run-on sentence that could be split after “remaining”: either full stop or semi-colon would work well.

That’s my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - thanks for your review, all done!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Reviewing this version: Is there a source for the kits in the infobox (not for the images, but that these are the actual kits). Otherwise, image licence and use seem fine for me. I think the ALT text needs some work; I don't think you mean to describe the appearance of the players in this context. Source spot-check upon request. Who published the "Gillingham Vs Oxford United Matchday Programme"? https://www.newspapers.com/article/western-daily-press/136096230/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/reading-evening-post/137167991/ are given without a date. Is https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian/136845998/ really untitled? Sometimes sfn references are given with p despite there being multiple pagenumbers, and sometimes with pp despite only one page number. I guess these local newspapers are just about adequate sources for this type of topic. Nothing among the books jumps out as unreliable, but note that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with source reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus::
  1. The kits are sourced in paragraph 2 of the "background" section.
  2. I am not really an expert on alt text, how should I improve it?
  3. The match-day programme was published by the club
  4. https://www.newspapers.com/article/western-daily-press/136096230/ has a date, not sure what the issue is there
  5. So does https://www.newspapers.com/article/reading-evening-post/137167991/
  6. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian/136845998/ is an "insert" below an article about an unrelated match and has no specific title of its own
  7. Fixed the p/pp issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb I use for ALT text is "ALT text should substitute the function the image has in the article". So unless the looks/appearance of a player is important, it doesn't need to be in the ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - altered the only one where this seemed to be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I didn't notice that the dates were already there for 4 and 5, mea culpa. With the caveat of no source spot-check, this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harper J. Cole[edit]

Hi there, a few thoughts.

  • Six wins in the final eleven games of the season, however, meant that Gillingham finished the campaign in 13th place. Maybe mention how many teams were in the division here, to give context to their finishing position.
  • The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, was 14,446 for the League Cup game against Tottenham. A bit ambiguous—this could be read as meaning it was either the highest attendance in 82–83, or the highest attendance in the history of the stadium.
  • It's not something needed for FA status, but I see that current football season articles, e.g. 2023–24 Gillingham F.C. season, have a different style of listing results. The colour coding makes it quite easy to see how the results went at a glance. Is that something you might look to change in the future? Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is something like the 30th Gillingham season article I have brought to FAC and personally I would prefer to keep it consistent with all the previous ones. It's also worth noting that all those collapsible boxes on the 23/24 article are not compliant with accessibility requirements...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole: - many thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - support. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]


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/1982–83_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1196962147"