Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2000–01 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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2022 [1].

2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After six successful nominations, here is a seventh season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. for your consideration. In this season the team finally entered the promised land of the second tier of English football for the first time in the club's 107-year history. Happy days....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "FA Cup and Football League Cup. In the FA Cup the team " reads a bit clunky, can we not describe their progress at the same time as their participation?
  • "over at FA Premier League team Leicester City" why was the situation vacant?
  • "ahead of the first game of" first competitive game?
  • New kit, no mention of socks...
  • You use FA in FA Premier League on the first use but drop FA afterwards, why?
  • BBC Source says the goal was scored after two minutes...
  • "suffering a serious injury" any idea what the nature of the injury was? And six weeks doesn't feel like a "serious" one to me, but perhaps I'm old school (like broken legs, ACL etc)...
  • "defeating Wolverhampton Wanderers 1–0 " home or away?
  • "then lost to Grimsby Town" could say "lost at Grimsby Town"?
  • Maybe I'm being picky but it would be nice to get a sense of the home/away-ness in the prose which seems to be absent, having to wait mostly to the results table.
  • As per a previous review (not of mine), could add a quote or two here, like Hessenthaler saying he was "pleased it was only" a 3-0 loss to Fulham for instance.
  • "score at all in the next" no need for "at all".
  • "after suffering an injury" again, any word on the nature of it?
  • "during the season.[29] During the match" repetitive.
  • "all ended in draws" -> "were all drawn"?
  • Lots of overlinking in this section, Palace, Grimsby, Huddersfield, Sheff Utd, Wimbledon, Tranmere, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Norwich, relegation, Blackburn.
  • "Wednesday; Asaba scored ... Gillingham; he was transferred ..." too many clauses (I know it's nearly Xmas).
  • "scored one goal" scored once would suffice.
  • "The next two games, however" - against?
  • Any controversy in the season? Any sendings off?
  • "Football League Third Division final table, positions 10–16[56]" third?
  • "played AFC Bournemouth of " contextualise when this happened.
  • "of the Third Division. In front" overlinked.
  • "As Bartram and Hope were in the" > "As they were" (it's unambiguous).
  • "club's youth team. Of the youth team players" repetitive. And to some non-English readers, that may be confusing, why are youth team players getting a game for the first team?
  • "being relegated in 2005" overlinked.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - many thanks for your review. I've addressed most of the points and should hopefully be able to finish the rest later. I want to check my programmes from that season for more specific details of Paul Shaw's two injuries (which I can't seem to find in any other source) and I didn't have time on my lunch break to dig them out from under a pile of Christmas presents hidden in the same cupboard :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - all now addressed, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy that my concerns have been addressed. Offer for source review if no-one else gets there first... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:, can I take you up on that offer of a source review.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at over three weeks in and only a single support, this has only been able to get a single review. Without progress toward promotion, this one may be archived in three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 22:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

Little to comment on here, it nicely follows the template for a football season. Just a few comments:

  • Leicester City of the FA Premier League --> in the Premier League? Can a club be "of" the Premier League? Also not keen on unexplained abbreviations. I don't think you need the FA at all. Just Premier League is better. Here and rest of article.
    • I've reduced some of the uses to just Premier League, but left the first one in the lead and the first in the body as FA Premier League, as that was its actual name at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Daily Mirror --> I'm most certainly not much of an expert on reliable sources but WP:DAILYMIRROR seems to suggest that it is to be avoided in an FA context. Or are there precedents in FA sports articles?
    • The citation is to a survey that the Mirror did of a bunch of pundits, and quotes most of them predicting that Gillingham would be relegated, so in essence it's citing an interview. I would have thought this would be OK...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one time I used tabloids as source in an FA nomination (they were the only ones who had published a video online), reviewers did not like my explanation. I can't find a definition of high quality reliable sources, but it seems to me it is hard to argue that the Daily Mirror is a high quality reliable source. I'm afraid this bit just has to go if there is no other source. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, it's no big deal I guess. There's still one so-called expert predicting relegation in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as many as eight total goals --> do we really need total?
  • to do what Crewe have done --> link Crewe

That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • Formatting looks good. Just wondering if Tempus Publishing Ltd. is the only Ltd. I suspect the others are as well, so I'd drop Ltd.
  • Spotcheck: #3 4 6 10 11 13 14 15 17 48 51 53 all fine.

All looks fine to me, so I support on prose and sources. Fine work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Edwininlondon, just checking whether your comment immediately above means that you have passed on both a general and a source review? I am assuming that you have. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Happy to do a review, following the request above. (Sorry it's taken a bit of time to get round to it, I intended to do it over Xmas!)

Background and preseason
  • "In the previous season, the team had finished third in the Football League Second Division and qualified for the play-offs for promotion to the First Division. After defeating Stoke City in the semi-finals, Gillingham beat Wigan Athletic in the final to gain promotion to the second tier of the English football league system" - I found this pair of sentences slightly odd at first, and wonder if it might be a little confusing for a newcomer to the game. In particular, saying "promotion to the First Division" and then "promotion to the second tier" in consecutive sentences - you sort of have to infer that these are the same thing.
  • "Following Gillingham's promotion, the club offered a new contract" - might just be me, but I think "Following their promotion, Gillingham offered..." might work better here, since we already know we're talking about Gillingham.
  • "who had moved to Celtic" - a little bit irrelevant in the context of this article
    • I was requested by an earlier reviewer to mention why the Leicester post was vacant.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, so you were. Well fair enough then, I wouldn't like to argue with the findings of the esteemed The Rambling Man!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two of them forwards" - maybe "two of whom were forwards"?
  • "first signing as a manager" -> "first signing as manager"
  • "the third-highest transfer fee ever paid by Gillingham" - is that at the time, or now?
    • Clarified that it was at the time. I believe it still is but can't find a reference to confirm that specific fact.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paul Shaw was one of the club's summer signings" - not an actionable item, but this brought back an old memory of mine - I went to a completely random game in the late 90s between Millwall and Bristol City (even though I don't support either team) and the home fans had a chant "Baldy Shaw, Baldy Shaw, Baldy Baldy Shaw, He's got no hair, But we don't care, Baldy Baldy Shaw". I don't know if that persisted into his time with the Gills!
First division
  • "and the result was a draw" - sounds slightly wrong when there were two matches under discussion. Maybe "each of the matches finished as a draw" or similar.
  • "we just couldn't get near them...quite frankly I'm pleased it was only 3–0" - per MOS:ELLIPSIS I think there should maybe be a non-breaking space before the ... and a normal space after it.
  • "the only First Division match of the season to feature as many as eight goals" - is this across the whole league, or for Gillingham only? Also, might just be me but I think "eight or more goals" might be a clearer way to phrase it.
  • "Their spirit epitomises what their manager is all about....He gives 100 per cent and has taken that infectious enthusiasm into management" - ellipsis as above, and you also have four dots instead of three.
  • "An aggressive confrontation took place involving players from both teams which led to both clubs being fined by the Football Association four months later" - some sort of indication of when this was would be useful... during the match? Afterwards?
FA Cup
  • "third round stage" - one might put a hyphen in "third-round", particularly as "quarter-final stage" is also hyphenated below?

That's about all I can see for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all addressed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks, happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - can you confirm if it's now OK to nominate another article as this one has had a burst of activity? Hopefully the next one won't limp along quite so much :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Placeholder—will deal with this soon. SN54129 15:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: while I guess it doesn't hurt for the article to have a second source review, the article has actually already had one (see above)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Chris—it was still listed as requiring a review you see. @FAC coordinators: , we're 110% behind you!  ;) SN54129 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, I wasn't aware of that page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (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/2000–01_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1065921579"