Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1999–2000 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) 30 September 2021 [1].

1999–2000 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully promoting 1986–87 Gillingham F.C. season and 1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season to FA status, I now present another significant season in the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C., namely the season in which the team gained promotion to the second tier of English football for the first time in the club's 107-year history. I was at the game which clinched promotion and suffice to say I was very happy, but once again I am confident that I have written the article in an engaging yet neutral manner. I look forward to receiving feedback, all of which will be acted upon promptly....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would move File:Peter Taylor 2011.jpg to the left to avoid having him look off the page. I think it would add some nice variety anyway so all the images are currently presented on the right side.
  • For this sentence, Southall added a third goal in the last 10 minutes and Gillingham won 3–1 to reach the quarter-finals of the FA Cup for the first time., I would avoid having four citation as this seems like citation overkill. You could bundle the citations or find another way to avoid this. From my experience three is usually the limit before it goes into overkill territory.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I am guessing this sentence, Thomson scored 14 times across all competitions, and Southall was the only other player to reach double figures, with 13 goals., is supported by the citations for the Player statistics table?
    • Essentially, yes. It's simply reiterating the figures from the table, which are supported by the sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense to me. I just wanted to confirm it. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all four citations for the Player statistics table necessary? If so, would it be possible to bundle them to avoid having four citations used at once?
  • This is not required for the FAC, but I would encourage you to archive all the web sources to avoid any future headaches. Citations 4, 7, and 18 are some examples. I do not think the Gale citations need an archive so you should be good there. Again, it is not required, but dead links can be a pain in the future.
  • I have made some minor edits to the article prior to this review. A majority of them were minor. I added a comma here and there and fixed some spacing issues and an issue with one of the citations. I just wanted to clarify that in my review.

I only have a few minor comments. I know absolutely nothing about English football, but even with that, I was still able to follow what was being said in the article without any real issues. I only bring this to say that I can really comment on the content itself so I focused more on how it was represented in the prose. Reading this article does remind me how important it is to review outside of my comfort zone. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Aoba47: many thanks for your review, all points address above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are doing well, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:RainhamEndGordonRoadStand.jpg: is there a reason the original URL was removed from the description? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - no idea, looks like an error by the bot that transferred it to Commons. I have added it back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....

The main stand was also demolished, but the work to build its replacement encountered various problems - bit vague...what problems?
I presume it was supplier/finance issues, but I can't say for definite, so I changed it to "encountered various delays" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe another sentence right at the end on how long they lasted in the second tier?

Not seeing anything else actionable. Looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Background anr preseason
  • "manager Tony Pulis" - there's a WP:SEAOFBLUE here
  • "midfielder Junior Lewis" - ditto
  • "Defender Barry Miller" - and here
  • "Forwards Andy Thomson" - sorry, I'm finding quite a few of these!
  • "goalkeeper Vince Bartram"
August to December
  • "The team then suffered another setback, though, losing" - I think the "though" may be superfluous here
  • "Pulis' first appearance" - should be "Pulis's" per MOS:'S
January to May

No issues that I can see here.

Play-offs
  • "The second leg was an emotionally-charged game" - according to whom? Sounds a bit of a POV observation to be making in WikiVoice.
FA Cup
  • "Manchester United's controversial decision" - controversial according to whom? Could possibly omit this word
Football League Cup

No issues

Football League Trophy

No issues

Players
  • "he missed only one Second Division game, one FA Cup game, and one League Cup game" - did he play in the solitary FL Trophy game then?
  • Oh, never mind, it seems he did from the table below. Good.

All good apart from that. A very well-written article, thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy turnaround Chris! I've just realised I forgot to review the lead... (I usually do the body first, and forgot to come back to it)

  • "went on a much-improved run due in large part to the goalscoring of Robert Taylor" - I guess it's sort of obvious from the fact that they improved to fifth place, and Taylor scored a ton of goals, but noting that I'm not seeing these two facts explicitly stated in the body. Might be worth adding a line somewhere, with a cite.
  • "was signed by Manchester City for a new club record fee" - clarify that this was a Gillingham record, not for Manchester City (assuming it wasn't).
  • "best ever run in the FA Cup" - the body says they reached the quarter-final for the first time, but it's not quite the same as they might have had a better run since then. Clarify in the body.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - also done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: fantastic, thanks. Happy to support now. BTW if you feel like doing a review yourself, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 2004 Final/archive1 is awaiting some input. No obligation or pressure though, of course! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck[edit]

Been a while since I've done of these. Spot checking a few sources; can't get a very broad sweep due to offline and paywall sources but I see no issue based on the sampling I could take (version used for ref numbers):

  • Ref 75: Used accurately
  • Ref 86: Used accurately
  • Refs 79 & 80 (linked usage): Used accurately
  • Ref 87: Used accurately
  • Ref 4: Used accurately
  • Ref 40: Used accurately

Sources used are reliable—largely long-standing, reputable newspapers or the Association of Football Statisticians. Book sources generally seem to be used for dry facts—match results, transfer fees, etc—and so seem uncontroversial. As for formatting, some nonstandard quotation marks in ref 80 could be replaced. I'm surprised to see Grauniad sources behind a paywall as their archives go back to this time period but I couldn't find web versions of some of the articles used, which is unfortunate, but has no real bearing. Overall I see no problem with sourcing here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - with the current status of this nom, might I be permitted to start another one.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "the first round of" in the prose but "First Round" in the infobox etc. Round or round?
  • "the FA Cup, beating" is it worth linking the specific FA Cup season?
    • I dunno - the sentence is "Gillingham also had their best run to date in the FA Cup", covering their entire history in the competition. Linking the words FA Cup to one specific season in this sentence doesn't feel right to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "home leg of" could link leg to two-legged tie.
  • Be consistent with pipelinks, e.g. Peter Taylor is linked to a redirect in the infobox.
  • "manager of Leicester City." which division?
  • "1999–2000 season" put season in the link.
  • "but the team " which team?
  • "Gillingham finally gained" little POV to say "finally".
  • "joining on loan from West Ham" already linked "loan" above albeit to a slightly different target.
  • "beat Oxford United 2–1 " overlinked.
  • "inflicted Bristol City's first home" overlinked.
  • " of Burnley on" overlinked.
  • "with the teams who finished fourth, fifth, and sixth" why not "with the three teams below them"?
  • "In the first leg of the two-legged tie" maybe first match rather than have leg repeated.
  • "Gillingham scored two goals in the last six minutes" I can't imagine how utterly amazing that must have been.
  • "the FIFA Club World Championship" is there a specific year article?
  • "win on aggregate.[77] In" overlinked.
  • "Football League Trophy" any reason the table is sortable with one entry?
    • Not really other than that I copied and pasted the headers from another table. Now removed the sortability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the highest number of appearances" -> the most appearances.
  • "only appearance for Gillingham" that season or ever?
  • Is Mitten not notable after an appearance in the FL trophy?
    • Well, probably by the strictest interpretation of NFOOTY he is, but with a professional career that consisted of a single appearance in the FL Trophy, I can't see him ever having an article (and if he ever had one and it was brought to AfD I could see it getting deleted) but I have redlinked him nonetheless -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all done, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this now, good work Chris. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:29, 30 September 2021 (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/1999–2000_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1047461735"