Talk:Bath City F.C./GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 10:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, happy to take a look at this one. I've noticed you've undertaken a lot of work on this recently. Club articles are always pretty hefty, but we can see how we go. To start with, there are a few glaring issues I can spot off the bat.

• The lead is too long. Even the biggest articles should have a maximum of 4 paragraphs to start, this has 7 right now. The information about kits and the final para on the "one-team city" are parts that I would say could be left for the main text.

• Paragraphs should generally not finish without a reference as it appears to be unsourced. There are a few examples of this throughout.

• The reference formatting is a little sketchy. The British Newspaper Archive links should really include the publication, page number, subscription required field, any possible authors and then use the "via=" for the British Newspaper Archive. There are also a few refs missing things such as publishers and dates.

• A few refs seem possibly unreliable or self-published. Are Left Lion (ref 9), blogspot (ref 21), Vintage footballers (ref 40), M Tanner Sports (ref 43), Read the League (ref 56), Progress with Unity (ref 82), Two Blue Quarters (ref 85), Heraldry Wiki (ref 125), Rocket Makers (Ref 132), The Wycombe Wanderer (ref 146 and 151), Bristol Rovers History Group (ref 153), Football Web Pages (ref 176), Sean's Stories (ref 185), Box to Box Football (ref 202), Bath Newseum (ref 208) and Beyond the Last Man (ref 231) reliable sources? All these appear to be questionable as far as I can see.

That's a decent bit of work there. Once these are addressed, I'll start looking at the prose. Kosack (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much, yes I'll try and add the publication, page number, subscription required field to all British newspaper archive references, its an amazing source. Also, I will get rid or replace the questionable references, thanks. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kosack I think I've cleaned up all of the issues that you noted, If I've missed anything, let me know. Thanks Joseph1891 (talk) Joseph1891 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I'll keep an eye on any reference issues moving forward anyway, that was just the biggest issue I could spot at first hand. Made a start on the review

First run through

Lead

• "changed it's name" > its

• "entirely in non-league football", as your referring to the actual Football League here, League should be capitalised.

• "Though, the club have been in talks for entry to the English Football League through out their entire history", I'm a bit confused by this phrase. As entry to the Football League has been decided by election or promotion for over 100 years now, how can they be in talks to enter?

• "club have a good record", bit POV here. Could rephrase to something like "The club has achieved some success in the FA Cup" maybe?

• The Somerset and Wiltshire leagues are described as friendly competitions here and the club started playing competitive football in 1908. However, surely by definition, a league of senior teams is competitive?

• "runners up" > runners-up

• "the top tier of non league football at the time. (Fourth tier)" > non-League and probably no need for the fourth tier here.

• "Shortly after, In 1933" Stray capital letter here

• "In the 1930s the club was heavily being discussed for entry into the Football League Third Division", the lead should generally be a short summary of the history of the club. This seems a bit unnecessary, if nothing ever came of it.

• "In the 1959–60 they" > In the 1959–60 season?

• "the 1977–1978 season" > the 1977–78 season

• "Bath moved down to the seventh division", moved down sounds a bit odd as if it was a choice. I'd change to "were relegated" and name the division or change to seventh tier as "seventh division" is a bit confusing.

• "the lowest tier the club has ever been in due to the creation of the Conference North and South", the naming of divisions is likely to start becoming convoluted for the average reader. I'd suggest removing the Conference North and South part and just have "the lowest tier the club has ever played in".

• Repeat link of Southern Football League can be removed.

• The last paragraph is full of repeat links with league names. Per WP:OVERLINK, links should generally only appear once in the lead and once in the main body. Also the tiers linking to English Football League system is unnecessary as they all point to the same place.

Early years (1889–1925)

• "The club was formed by members of the Bath Association Cricket Club, led by eventual player, Bill Hyman", the ref for this sentence (#11) doesn't seem to support this. There is no mention of the club being formed or Hyman being a player as far as I can see?

• The North Parade Ground is linked twice in the opening paragraph, remove the second link.

• Cardiff City are mentioned and linked as an opponent in the club's early season, but the reference is dated 1889. Cardiff City were not formed until 1899, and weren't actually named Cardiff until a decade later, so that can't be the same club.

• "and came seventh", came sounds a little I formal, finished seventh?

• "Twerton street Michaels", I'm unfamiliar with name but does the Street need capitalising here?

• I'd suggest dropping the "some of which joined later" part as it doesn't really need the explanation as the following sentence continues the timeline fine.

• The last two sentences here are out of order chronologically. I'm guessing you did this as it was a continuation of the league, but I'd reword to simply "In July 1905, the club was renamed Bath City and, the following year, joined Division One of the the Bristol and District League".

• "they entered competitive league format football", as noted in the opening, the leagues prior to this are still competitive if they are senior teams playing in competition.

• "Western League Division 2", before this you used Division One when referring to a league. Best to stay consistent when using numerals or words when referring to divisions.

• "runners up" > runners-up

• "departed Twerton", this is the first mention of Twerton. When did they arrive there?

• "the ground, since 2012 has facilitated training for Bath Rugby's first team", I'm wondering how relevant this information to the football club itself, especially at this point in the article?

• "western league", capitalise.

• "Southern league English section", capitalise league here and in the following sentence.

• "with division three (Southern league) demoted to the fourth tier", that's not really true though. The Southern Football League was a rival competition to the Football League up until at least 1920 and would not have been classed as the Third Division.

• "Billy Tout was appointed as player-manager", judging by the managerial history, this was the club's first manager. Worth pointing that out for the reader otherwise the significance isn't really explained.

That's the lead and the opening section. Let me know when you're done or have any comments. Kosack (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll clean up everything you've listed here.

1) Sorry, the part about William Hyman forming the club is in the "list of past players" on the official Bath City website, so I'll link that there.

2) though it seems odd, the Somerset and Wiltshire Leagues, were not officially classed as "competitive football".

What are you classing as competitive football though? As long as the teams were senior, if a league table is being maintained as a competition then really that's competitive. Also, the claim about Hyman being the second highest goalscorer would make no sense as, according to the ref used, he departed in 1908, the same year as the article states they turned competitive. If those matches are not competitive, then his goals are the same? Kosack (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

3) Yes, the Sothern league was never the "Third division", but it acted as the Third tier, before 1920 and then the Fourth from 1958 to 1980. Only teams who played in the Northern League and Southern League, were allowed entry to the football league as it was only one tier below, and it was the top tier of non league football.

Just because there was no automatic promotion to the Football League before 1985, didn't mean that anything below the football league was "tier-less", as promotion to and from leagues within the non league system was present decades before 1985.

-- It's a bit like if the modern day National League required election to the Football League. It's only one tier below, but no one would call the National League "League Three", The Southern and Northern Leagues were similar in that the quality was almost on par in some of the early years, but no one called it the "Third, Fourth, or Fifth Division" etc. Hopefully that makes sense.

However, I can see I've basically stated that The Southern League was The Third Division, which isn't true. I'll make sure to clarify that.

Everything else seems spot on, and stuff I wouldn't recognise if it was just me trying to correct everything, thanks so much for the help. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the year in which they turned from 1908, to 1900, as I couldn't find any evidence in the Bath City FC archives, or the British Newspaper Archive. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Fourth tier

I'm probably going to be away most of the weekend so I've added the next few sections to keep this ticking along.

• The sentences here about Davis' tenure and achievements could probably be moved to when he actually left the club for the final time later in the section. It seems odd to be listing his future achievements, then reverting back. Perhaps open with "In 1927, Ted Davies was appointed first team coach at Bath and led the club to it's first trophy two years later after winning the Somerset Cup"?

• "first completive trophy"> competitive?

• "The season was labelled "the best in the club's history", add by the Bath Chronicle.

• Repeat link to Twerton can be dropped.

• "resumed playing home games at the newly built Twerton Park", this reads oddly. They can't resume playing at a new ground surely?

• "with Liverpool legend and Scottish international, Alex Raisbeck", be wary of peacock words like legend. Simply "former Liverpool player and Scottish international"?

• Repeat link for Ted Davis can be dropped.

• "Upon Outbreak of the Second World War" > Upon the outbreak of...

• What do you mean when you say "accepted by chance"? Was it due simply to being in close proximity to the other teams?

• "resume playing in the Southern league", capitalise league.

• "Legendary manager Davis", legendary is again a peacock term. Long-serving perhaps? Might be a good place to reinsert the info from earlier about his success.

• "after wining" > winning

• Somerset Cup is repeat linked in the same sentence.

• Where is the information about Sloan and Hewison sourced to? The next refs are dated a year later so don't seem likely to cover all those changes?

• "a reform similar to that of 1920 took place. A new Fourth Division was formed", merge these into one sentence otherwise it reads a little clunkily.

• "The Southern league", lower case the, capitalise league and unlink.

• "finishing on 67 points (in 42 matches) with the club", with the club doesn't seem to fit here.

• Replace the full stop before ref 56 with a comma.

Fifth tier

• Tony Book, FA Cup and Manchester City are all repeat linked in the opening paragraph.

• "Allison is considered one of the greatest and most exuberant English managers of all time", how relevant is this to the history of the club? Unless, you're looking to imply the club had some influence over that, I'm a little unsure to it's relevance and it's quite POV considering one of the sources you used actually adds that he was controversial and discredited by some.

• "non league football" > non-League football

• "southern league Premier" > Southern League Premier. The link in the following sentence can be moved here also.

• Does ref 72 really cover all the information that precedes it?

• "Powell was sacked to be replaced by Arnold Rodgers", sacked to be replaced is a little clunky. Just replaced by perhaps?

• "they lost to current Serie A club Udinese Calcio", I'd drop current Serie A club, it's not really relevant and is adding undue weight to the club's standing.

• "Club Calcio Lecco", club doesn't need capitalising.

• "by a mere three votes", drop mere. Again, adding undue weight to the meaning I'd say.

• Football League, Football League Fourth Division and Eastville all repeat linked here.

• I'm not sure we need the information about the penultimate use of the election system here. It doesn't really change anything about what happened.

• Somerset Cup repeat linked in the final sentence.

• Last part of this section is unsourced.

Decline (1997–2017)

• "departure in, In 1996", double use of in.

• "As a result, ended up", something missing here.

• Southern Football League repeat linked

• Southern league > Southern League

• "the Youth academy", no need to capitalise youth.

• "Following the demotion, Bath city's" > Bath City's

• "manager Addie Britton", the previous paragraph used Adie.

• "believing club would" > the club

• national league > National League

• "Australian Manager", no need to capitalise manager.

• Bristol Rovers repeat linked in the last paragraph. Kosack (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much @Kosack, you've been so helpful, I'll make sure to clear up everything. Hope you have a great weekend. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

2017–present

• "In the 2018–19 National League South season the club finished fifth, on 71 points, a feat that had not been accomplished since the 2009–10 promotion season", source?

Crest and colours

• There's only one source in this paragraph and it doesn't cover a lot. Needs more refs.

• "Bath have worn black and white throughout their entire history", earlier in the text it mentions "members suggested that the team's attire ought to be blue shorts and white shirts". Both statements can't be true.

• "one of the Patron Saints of the Abbey. Which is also the cities' parish church", change the full stop to a comma.

• "Bath have worn black and white throughout their entire history", no need to mention this twice.

• The table needs more sourcing to cover the information shown.

1919–1932: Lambridge

• No need to capitalise ground in the first sentence and unlink Midland Railway Company.

• A lot of the information here is about the club's achievements at the ground which is really more suited to the history section. The ground section should generally be more for the ground itself.

1932–present: Twerton Park

• The sentence about the current capacity should probably be moved to the last paragraph as it doesn't really fit in the timeline here

• "competing in the National League South as of the 2022/23 season" > 2022-23 season and also unsourced.

• Is there a reason for namechecking the three grounds it was ranked above. I would suggest something more like, "ahead of several later Football League stadiums"

Support

• The ref in the first sentence is dated 1948 but the sentence mentions the 1950s and 1960s.

• "the club drew large numbers of fans from Bath itself and North Somerset", I'm not seeing this in either of the sources?

• "as five hundred" > 500

• national league south > National League South

• Ref 181 doesn't appear to support much either?

• Same for ref 183

Rivalries

• Why is Gloverscast (ref 192) a reliable source?

• Repeat links for Yeovil Town and Weymouth in this section. Kosack (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks so much again Kosack, I'll make sure to fix all of those errors.

Just out of interest, is it possible for you to say how good the quality of writing is? I feel like it can be improved. e.g. if you were going to grade Manchester United F.C. say 9/10 what would you give this article at the moment? I'd like to make it as well-written as possible, and I don't think it is currently. Just need some guidance in terms of the poorly written bits. I'm not sure if you're allowed to say yet or... Joseph1891 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to give a number rating as I don't think it would be a fair reflection. The GA criteria requires an article be "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience", which this is well on the way to being. I don't think anything here is poorly written, but there are always improvements to be made if you dig deep enough. The Manchester United article you mentioned there has gone through a much more rigorous review process as a featured article, so has been fine tuned by a number of editors and is an example of Wikipedia's best work. Is that where you hope to take this article? Kosack (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks Kosack, yeah I just wanted to know roughly what sought of state the article was in etc. Yes, the end goal is, ultimately, to achieve Featured article status. (Which it's probably a long way from at the moment.) I see that fellow National League South club, Dover Athletic's page is an FA though, which makes me a bit more hopeful. By the way, thanks for you work, it's so helpful. Also, I have re-worded some of the history sections in an attempt to make it read better, and I will continue to do so for the other sections, hopefully I'm doing a half decent job, thanks so much. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Any article can get to FA if you have the will to take it there. Using other articles as a guide and even reading their featured article nominations is a great way of seeing what is required to reach that sort of level. Once this GA is complete, there are other options available to be prepared, such as peer review and perhaps requesting a copyedit from the WP:GOCE. For now though, we'll focus on getting through GA. You're doing a good job. Kosack (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Community ownership

• "set by the majority shareholders of Bath City FC, but the shareholders made, but repetitive with the double use of shareholders. Could probably end the first part at target perhaps?

• "on last season", this is out of date now and needs to be changed to whatever season you're referring to.

• "Over the last 18 months", be careful using time sensitive phrases like this as they will become outdated very quickly.

• "The club is now much busier everyday thanks to hosting the likes of Cross Fit Bath gym and webuyanycar.com", in the general history of the club, this seems like pretty insignificant info. I would shorten to something like "explored new revenue streams" and move on.

• The ownership section in general is completely set within the last seven years. As a history article for the club, there needs to be a balance to avoid WP:Recentism. Much of it also seems to be about COVID disruption in recent seasons which seems to be more aying related than ownership. I'd ask myself is this section even necessary and could it be shortened and added to the main history? Norwich City F.C. uses the heading current ownership which maybe more appropriate and follow along those lines?

Notable former players

• "including one of the best English players", too much puffery. England international or something similar would suffice.

• "that have achieved legendary status", same again, this is personal opinion.

Club officials

• Board of directors table was last updated in December 2020, can this be updated. • Managerial history table is unsourced.

Honours

• "Bath are the second most successful club that currently play in the National League South", is there a source for this?

• "first completive trophy" > competitive?

• "southern league western section", capitalise

• "followed by the 1970s, and 1950s", I'd drop this part.

• "wining" > winning

• "Somerset cups" > Cups

• I wouldn't bother linking the tiers in brackets as mentioned earlier in the lead.

• "Non League" > non-League

• Only one source in this section, covering the Anglo-Italian Cups. Needs more.

See also

• How relevant is the murder of Melanie Hall to the club? The article itself only makes a passing reference to her father.

References

• Ref 1 has a publishing date available.

• British Newspaper Archive is not linked in ref 12, not a major issue but best to stay consistent.

• Ref 16 and 18 are the same, merge them into one.

• Ref 25 doesn't have a publication?

• Still a few page numbers missing from some of the British Newspaper Archive refs.

• Ref 47 has an author and publishing date available

• Ref 50's title can't be correct. Even just making it Alex Raisbeck would be fine

• Author available in ref 51, also the > The

• Ref 60 needs to be lower case, as per WP:ALLCAPS, ref titles should not be shouting.

• That's an example from the first 50 refs of what needs to be looked at. I'll leave the rest up to you.

That's it for the first run through. I'll take another run through at the start of next week or later if you don't get round to it before then. Ping me when everything has been addressed or responded to. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks, again I'll make sure to clean everting up.

However,

1) Bath are the second most successful club that currently compete in the national league south, its hard to find a source for everything for this level, have a look at other National League south clubs Wikipedia pages "honours section" if you want to check, I believe something like this is worth noting.

I believe you that it's true and I agree that it's worth noting however, without adequate sourcing, this looks distinctly like original research. Kosack (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

2) Adding the "tier brackets" (Tier 4); is a must in my opinion. Many football fans won't be aware of what sought of level The "Southern League Western Section" occupied on 1932, I know it is stated above, but some readers may not bother to read the entire article, plus many other clubs use this format.

Personally, it's far more helpful for me to view another clubs honours section when tiers are present.

I think our wires crossed here, I just meant to remove the links from the brackets in the text of the section is all. I'm fine with the tiers there. Kosack (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

3) "Ownership" sections are often based upon recent years... surely you don't suggest I write the clubs entire ownership history, I can't see any other clubs that do this, otherwise it would just belong within the "History Section"?

It depends what you want the section to do. If you're simply detailing the current ownership, then I think it could be written more like the Norwich page, perhaps opening with more of an explanation on the current ownership structure, for example "Bath City is a community owned company led by chairman..." or whatever information you think is relevant. With the community ownership sub-heading and the chronological order in which it's written right now, I took that you were doing more of a history of ownership section, such as Manchester United, which is why I considered recentism. Either way is fine, but I think it needs tweaking depending on which example you're trying to follow. Kosack (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I've changed the section's title to "Current Ownership" Joseph1891 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Everything else that you mentioned, is once again, spot on, and things I will edit now. Thanks Kosack -- Joseph1891 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Just looking for a status update on the progress of this Joseph. I can still see a few things outstanding from the above and Number 57 has removed a lot of the talk of tiers that were noted below. It would be good to get a stable version of this for another run through. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article is complete now. I fully see Number57's point about how non-League was not organised as formally as it is now, but the statement that; "no tiers at all existed before 1979" still seems to be a bit of a stretch, especially as he hasn't really provided any evidence for this, so I'm purely relying on his word. Nonetheless, I did the opposite, and overstated the formality of the tiers in non-League, I feel as though both are points balance the article.

Overall, I feel as though the page is in a good place now; not confusing the reader by essentially saying the club was in a 'fourth division', 'fifth division' etc. But also explains how the Southern League used to be step one of non-League football, and therefore, how the club have declined since the 1990s.

If possible, It would be great to continue the process! thanks. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect tier claims

Just to note, the claims of being in the fourth/fifth tier are wrong. There was no formal pyramid below the Football League until the creation of the Alliance Premier League in 1979. The headings "Fourth tier" and "Fifth tier" need replacing, as do the claimed tiers of several league honours. Number 57 23:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah… no. Sorry but you don’t seem to know your history. Many others have excepted this. The article has gone threw heavy editing over the past few weeks, in aim to become a Good article. Just because non-League tiers were not called The “fifth Division or fourth division” etc didn’t mean that the entirety of non-league was “tier-less”. Yes it’s true that a “formal” league that encompassed both North and South teams was created in 1979, in the form of the Alliance Premier League, but I have no idea where you’re getting the claim that “no formal leagues at all existed before this? So were all the leagues just friendlies then, or? It’s odd that you seem so reluctant to the except this, and only you seem seem to be so bothered by tiers, I have no clue why. This article has had months of research and scrutiny applied to it. Joseph1891 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out, I had my concerns over this issue and was expecting to delve into it during a second run through and at, the very least, request some input from others. I can sort of see your point, but it seems like you're inserting your own artificial structuring. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm "creating my own artificial structure", I just believe that non-League history is extremely under-reordered and unpublished.

I don't see how tiers seized to exist before 1980 for non-League teams. Clubs could still get promoted and relegated to and from divisions within the non-League pyramid long before this, just not from non-League to the Football League until 1985.

Having bought a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive two months ago, many articles depict the Southern League as "secondary" to the Football League, as only clubs in the Southern and Northern League had a chance at election to the football league, as they were both step one of the non league football pyramid.

For example; Torquay United were promoted from The Southern League to the Third Division in 1927, would it not be safe to note that the Southern League acted as the fourth tier at the time?

Their seems to be this notion from @Number 57 that I haven't done any research and pulled this information out from the hat.

Others are free to do their own research on this matter if they would like to, as I've basically done all of it for this page.

I'm sorry for coming across strongly, but people's points on this issue never seem to be backed up by much. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4][5][6] -- some sources that note that the Southern League was seen as secondary to the football league. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I can change the title headings in the history section if you prefer. To be honest; "fourth tier", "fifth tier" as titles are quite bland anyway. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I do know my history. And I did not say "no formal leagues at all existed before this" – I said "there was no formal pyramid", which is completely different. The Southern League did not have a formal tier until the Alliance Premier League was created. It was one of the best leagues outside the Football League and many clubs from it were elected. However, it was not the fourth or fifth tier. This is misleading readers. Perhaps others reviewing the article do not have the knowledge of non-league football to point out this misleading claim. Number 57 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Number 57

Ok, fair point, but what should I say then?... I just don't understand how an English division couldn't be placed into a tier at all.. Surely if the Southern League was the league in which nearly all non-League club's were elected, it would be just one tier below the Football league? I've asked some more 'elderly' people on this matter, (Mainly on social media and via email) and they said that the Southern League basically acted as the fourth tier before 1958, and the fifth tier after. Even though it wasn't formally recognised or labelled the "Fifth, or Fourth Division." Joseph1891 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Because there was no football pyramid – tiers didn't exist. Clubs could get elected to the Football League from any league outside it (or even none in the case of a few). It's best just to avoid mention of tiers until 1979. Number 57 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I get your point, but there were still tiers, whether "formal" or not. I get that I've over exaggerated the stance of them though, almost applying that Bath were in a "Fourth Division" before 1958 and "Fifth Division" after 1958, which didn't even exist and is incorrect, so I'll go about changing it.

However, saying the were "no tiers" at all isn't true, otherwise no club would've been able to get promoted or relegated within non-League.

I think you're thinking more of the officially recognised "English Football Pyramid" which was, indeed instated in 1980. In which non-League clubs could, theoretically, progress from tier 10 to tier 1.

If there were no tiers at all within non-League before 1958, then how did some clubs progress from say.. the Wiltshire league to the Southern League, or the London League to the Southern League. Stating that there were no tiers, implies that the likes of the Wiltshire League and Southern League were about the same level. Joseph1891 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Some leagues were regarded as being higher status than others (and obviously ones with wider geographical coverage would be higher than those more local ones whose footprint they included). However, they were not tiers (which implies a formal recognition) and should not be referred to as such in an encyclopaedic article. Number 57 20:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Second run through

There are a number of things that remain unchanged from the initial run through that need fixing. I'm assuming these are being lost in the large amount of points in the review so, for the second run through, I'll review section-by-section as we go.

Lead

• "multiple fairs", is fairs the correct word here? Not a turn of phrase I'm familiar with.

• "was discussed for election", this has been reworded, but I'm still confused about the turn of phrase, they were either elected or they weren't. The previous sentence already mentions failed election bids so this is irrelevant really.

• "the top tier of non-League football at the time", as 1979 is the cut-off point being discussed, this no longer applies.

• "the seventh division", this is very confusing, better off to name the league

• Century doesn't need capitalising and I don't think borough does either, judging by the article linked.

• "Twerton Park has been the club's home since 1932", this is repeated from the first paragraph, no need to mention it twice.

• The last sentence about prestige of trophies is still under question over sourcing, so we may need to come back to that later. Kosack (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Southern League history

[7] -- In 1920, via the official Southern League website; "The Southern League fist division became the Third Division of the Football League"

-- "History repeated itself in 1979 when there was a second mass exodus from the Southern League"

Thirteen of the league`s strongest clubs left to join the new Alliance Premier League.

The competition was so weakened that when the 1979/80 season kicked off, there was no longer a Premier Division – just regionalised Midland and Southern sections.

The loss of its strongest sides also meant that the league now made little impression in either the FA Cup or the FA Trophy."

[8] -- "Most of the top teams in the Southern League joined the Football League over the next few years. In 1920 virtually the entire top division of the Southern League was absorbed by the Football League to become the league's new Third Division. A year later this became the Third Division South."

[9] -- "In 1920, virtually the entire top division of the Southern League was absorbed by the Football League to become that league's new Third Division. A year later the Third Division was expanded and regionalised. The Third Division clubs from the previous season became the Third Division South, with the addition of the Third Division North.

For the next six decades, the Football League and Southern League would exchange a limited number of clubs as a result of the older league's re-election process. From 1920 onward, the Southern League's status as a semi-professional league was firmly established.

With its clubs seeking a more regular means of advancing to the Football League, in 1979 the Southern League became a feeder to the new Alliance Premier League along with the Isthmian League and the Northern Premier League, and the top Southern clubs of the day joined the new league. In turn, the APL (renamed Football Conference in 1986) would eventually succeed in becoming a feeder to the Football League. The league lost more of its top clubs in 2004 when the Conference added two regional divisions below the existing National League, the Conference South and Conference North."

[10] -- "In 1971, League secretary Alan Hardaker held talks with the Southern and Northern Premier Leagues about the possible foundation of an `Alliance`, essentially the fifth division, yet nothing materialised – yet!"

[11]

[12] In 1969, -- A Fifth division of the football league for the top Northern and Southern League clubs?

Also, Number57 made a point that clubs from many different leagues within the non league structure could get elected to the football league;

stating: "Clubs could get elected to the Football League from any league outside it (or even none in the case of a few)"... which is not true for southern teams. (Bath City)

As this source suggests [13], only clubs from the top level of non-League. (e.g. Southern League for southern teams) could get elected to the football league. As: the Southern league acted as one tier below the football league until the formal creation of the Alliance Premier league in 1979.

However, for northern clubs, the non-league structure was indeed less formal until 1974 in which the Northern League was established. Thereby clubs from a wider range of leagues could get elected as they all essentially acted at the same level. e.g. midland league, Northern eastern league etc.

However the idea that 'any club in any non-League Division could get elected to the Football League' is not true.

I realise that non-league was very.. 'messy' before 1979 and leagues were not officially labelled as "Fourth, Fifth, Seventh Sixth division etc.

However, there is multiple evidence for The Southern League being step one of the non-league pyramid before the formation of the Alliance Premier League. It is true that a 'formal pyramid' was introduced in the 1980s. Albeit, no one has yet provided any evidence of; "no tiers existing at all" before this. Yet there are vast amounts of evidence of the southern league being a secondary to the football league, and therefore, essentially acting as any tier below the lowest of the football league. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do at this point is bring this review to a close. A lot of time has been invested in this review already and there is still a considerable amount to be looked at. This would probably have been achievable given time, but the tier problem is clearly going to be an issue moving forward.

Your viewpoint on the tier system currently goes against the general viewpoint of pretty much all other articles I can see and both myself and Number 57 have expressed concern over this during the review. Promoting this article to GA status with a conflicting idea to the general status quo is really not possible I believe. The best course of action now is for you to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and try to gain a consensus regarding the tier issue. With the tier issue agreed and ensuring that the first run through points are addressed (there are still a lot of missing references that haven't been fixed), this should be a much smoother run to GA. Feel free to message me if you have any questions, thanks. Kosack (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And just to follow up on the claim that "only clubs from the top level of non-League. (e.g. Southern League for southern teams) could get elected to the football league", this is not the case – clubs from any division could apply. After 1920 (when the Third Division (later Third Division South) was formed and the Southern League allegedly became the "top tier" of non-league football in southern England and south Wales, numerous clubs within the Southern League footprint but not members of the Southern League applied for election, including Bridgend Town (Welsh National League, 1921, 1948), Llanelly (Welsh National League, 1922, 1923, 1929, 1947, 1950), Argonauts (no league at all, 1928, 1929 and 1930), Nuneaton Town (Birmingham & District/Worcestershire Combination, 1933, 1950), Cradley Heath (Birmingham & District, 1950), Burton Albion (Birmingham & District, 1955, 1957, 1958). Plus there were a few clubs from the part of the Midland League that overlapped with the Southern League that applied, including Peterborough and King's Lynn.

And I left out one example, just to make it clear how absurd this claim is: Bath City themselves applied for Football League membership in 1921 when they were in the Western League!! Number 57 23:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)