Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1919–20 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) 29 June 2023 [1].

1919–20 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan to nominate any more Gillingham F.C. season articles, as I got the impression that people were a bit fed up of them, but then I found myself inexorably drawn into working on this one and now here we are..... So please enjoy reading about another rubbish season in the history of my favourite football team, one of the few highpoints of which was the performance of a player with a metal plate in his head. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • competed in the first and second sentence successively. Perhaps a variation, I think in your other articles you've used played or something along those line.
  • first round proper -- Is there a definitive term for the round following qualifying? Otherwise this is not a hold-up for me (as I do not follow football)
    • First round proper is the usual term - see eg this
  • the team had been promoted from Division Two in 1895 -- I think this can be split into a separate sentence.
  • The team followed this up with a home win -- should it be The team followed this with a home win
  • were absent for the next game -- should it be absent from
  • to be replaced by Robert Brown. -- was replaced
  • That's all I have. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review - all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part, (said it would go down in the history of the mining village), would it be beneficial to link "mining village" to the pit village article. I think the meaning is rather obvious (i.e. a location with a mining-focused economy), but since there is a separate article on this topic, I thought I should ask if linking would help.
  • Alf Bluer and Bert Nash both had red links. That is obviously more than okay. Just wanted to double-check with you that it was intentional on your part, and that you think these individuals have potential for an article.
    • Yes, those players may possibly merit articles, as they played at a higher level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Works Cited" citations, shouldn't Gillingham F.C. be linked in the Bradley/Triggs source?
  • I am not sure if the Newspapers.com citations required the "url-access=limited" parameter since clippings are used and they can be viewed by even individuals without an account.
    • I dunno, I was told in a previous FAC that this was needed because the whole site isn't freely available. I have no idea if this is correct or not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable. I will leave this matter to the source reviewer. I can see arguments on both sides. The clipping allows readers to see the article without a subscription, but to get more information or context from the actual newspaper, a subscription is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. You have done a wonderful job with the article, and I could not find anything major. All of my comments are incredibly nitpick-y. I have made some edits to the article on my own, but feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. I hope you are having a good day or night so far. Aoba47 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your review, responses above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very quick responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Another tale of misery and woe for early 20th-century football in Gillingham, although this season feels lower than the others I reviewed!

Background and pre-season
  • "The 1919–20 Southern League season was the first to take place after the First World War; Gillingham had not played a competitive match since the 1914–15 season": It's not clear from this that the whole league was stopped between 1915 and 1919 – a slight addition to clarify would, I think, be beneficial
FA Cup
Players
  • "T.Turner" should be spaced after the initial

That's it – rather scant fare from me. - SchroCat (talk)

@SchroCat: - many thanks for your review, those three points now addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another excellent article in this series which passes the FA criteria and provides a decent and enjoyable read too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • The Oxford comma is used inconsistently
  • A comma is needed before "but other tasks associated..." - it's an independent clause. Disregard if it's an American/British English issue
  • Same before "and the club signed a host of new players to take their place"
  • "over 100 Football League games" --> Should that be "a hundred"? I don't know myself...

That's all I got. A nice entry. ~ HAL333 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - many thanks for your review, I've done the last three. Could you point out the Oxford comma failings? I'm struggling to pick them out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the whole article and the only missing Oxford comma I could find was "played 47 competitive matches, winning 11, drawing 10 and losing 26".
Also, on review I found a run-on: "After conceding a goal early on, Gillingham drew level before half time, but in the second half, they played poorly and West Stanley scored twice more to win the match and eliminate Gillingham from the competition." with three independent clauses. ~ HAL333 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: - both addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • Optionally, you could use Hyphenator to put all of the ISBN's in a standard format.
  • Ref 44: Daily Telegraph should be The Daily Telegraph. Probably also in "the correspondent for the Daily Telegraph"
  • Ref 44: should "decisively" also be in quote marks, or would you argue that using this word from the source meets WP:LIMITED?
  • Note: Bristol Times and Mirror and The North Star seem to have faded into obscurity; I couldn't find any wikilinks to suggest.
  • Note: All the sources are appropriate; some of the newspapers later merged to less-than-reputable publications, but that's not an issue that affects any of them as used here.

General comments

  • I see that most of the attendance figures are rounded to a thousand; is there any need to indicate that these are approximate figures, or is there no such qualification in the source(s)?
  • There's a duplicate link for Watford in the August–December subsection.
  • "In result column, Gillingham's score shown first" seems a little terse, but this may be the accepted form, rather than something like "In the result column, Gillingham's score is shown first"

That's all I could see. Nice work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: - many thanks for your review, all addressed with the exception of the one about attendances. It's pretty obvious that they are all approximations, but the source doesn't explicitly say that, so not sure how best to address.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Pass for source review, and Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 29 June 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/1919–20_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1162575844"