Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season/archive1

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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [1].

1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As FAC reviewers may be getting bored of articles about Gillingham F.C., I thought I would instead nominate an article about New Brompton F.C. Oh, hang on - it's the same club - never mind :-) I am particularly pleased with the number of images I was able to find for this one - it's quite unusual to find match action photos in newspapers of this vintage but the Daily Mirror was kind enough to send a photographer along to one of the team's games in 1907. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

I would wikilink FA Cup in the lead.
went on to win 2–1 thanks to a goal scored by Cunliffe. -- Might just be me, but thanks to sounds a bit informal I guess. Perhaps a little tweaking.
Godley was making his debut -- made his debut
Hartley was absent for the game against Millwall on 27 April, Godley playing in his place. -- perhaprs with Godley playing in his place for better flow
even had they finished in the bottom -- might be an English writing I am not familiar with, but could this be phrased as even if they had finished (I could be wrong though)
I think the footnote could be split into 2 sentences.
Few comments from me. Great work as usual on this series; very well-written. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: - thanks! All the above done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Is it worthwhile, somewhere in the lede, mentioning the club's current name? Especially since you pipe from it.

Done

Background: Was promotion possible from the Southern League Division One at the time? Or was there a requirement of election to the Football League? Some brief explanation might be useful since NB was not at the top of the football pyramid.

Added a few words to clarify

"the game, which was originally scheduled to be played on Boxing Day but was postponed due to snow" So by the original schedule NB was to play both Christmas Day and Boxing Day? Leaving aside 29 December.

Yes, that's correct. Right up until (I think) the 1950s there was a full programme of professional football in England on both Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and then they usually played on whatever was the next Saturday as well. In fact in 1913 Gillingham played games on the 25th, the 26th, AND the 27th!! Hard to imagine today's prima donna players going along with that :-)

"as no teams were promoted from Division Two." Why?

I've removed that bit completely. I've just discovered a source which indicates that promotion and relegation between the two divisions was not automatic but by election, and that Northampton and Crystal Palace were both re-elected to Division One. So we can't really say what would have happened had NBFC finished in the bottom two.......

In the table for the FA Cup matches, the wrong year is three times given.

That was embarrassing! Fixed now

There seems considerable whitespace in the "Players" section apparently due to the images.

I've tried a few things viz-a-vis the formatting of the table but can't figure out a way to reduce it. Any advice you can give.....?

Multiple image template or moving one to another section?

That's my lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review. Responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

'wrote that "[w]ith such a list of players': FYI MOS:CONFORM permits this to be 'wrote that "with such a list of players'. It's optional; I mention it in case you weren't aware.
- Done - thanks for the tip
Not an issue for this article, but I see that the nickname "the Hoppers" doesn't get a mention in History of Gillingham F.C.. Should it?
- I had a look through my various club history books and none mention it being a widely-used or long-lasting nickname for the team
Can you tell if Lunn was on the teamsheet for the first game of the season? If so I'd include him in the pre-season section even if Brown doesn't mention him.
- He made his debut in the match stated at the end of September. I didn't find any sources which indicate that he joined the club before the season started so I presume he joined some time after the first game
I overuse semicolons myself so if I'm noticing them there are probably too many. I would suggest trying to remove at least two or three. The "January–April" subsection has nine in three paragraphs. I think it's not so much the number of them as that the sentence structures are a bit repetitive -- very difficult to avoid describing dozens of matches one after the other, I know. Perhaps just changing one or two of them to full stops would do it.
- Got rid of a whole bunch

That's all I can find to complain about. I made a couple of copyedits; please revert if you disagree with anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I think we've covered this before, but can you say why rsssf.org is a reliable source? I can't find a discussion of it in the previous reviews I looked at.

Formatting looks good and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF is very highly regarded and its data has been cited by news outlets in India (where it was described as "a reputed organisation of football statistics experts"), the UK, the UK (again),the US and by Reuters. The Guardian newspaper called it "ever-reliable" and it is or was the "official statistical partner" of the Danish Football Association. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear from their introduction page how they validate the data supplied by their members. It does seem that they are not open to everyone -- there's a membership application process which requires submission of some statistics, so that implies a quality control step of some kind. Along with the positive references by other reliable sources I think this just about passes, but if there are any other football statistics databases which have clearer editorial control I'd suggest switching. Or if you can find a clearer description of editorial control for rsssf.org that would also help. For the coords: this is a pass, though I'd welcome further opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: To make things easier, I've just replaced RSSSF in this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that makes the source review an unequivocal pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Is there a way to verify the kit in the infobox? Do we know where "Boots, Balls and Haircuts" was first published? Everything else seems fine, licence-wise. ALT text is passable. Image placement seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The kit is sourced via the final sentence of the "background and pre-season" section. Location added for "Boots, Balls...." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is a pass on the image front. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

@FAC coordinators: - may I start another nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. FrB.TG (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - thank you most kindly :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:17, 30 November 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.