Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985–86 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) 25 April 2022 [1].

1985–86 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 11th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. I was 13 years old at the time and was devastated when the team managed to blow their chance of promotion. Hopefully this article won't do the same - see what I did there.....? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Placeholder, leaving comments later today. FrB.TG (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After slipping to as low as ninth" - do we really need "as low as"?
  • "Over the summer break, the club spent £80,000 (equivalent to £250,000 in 2020) installing..." This is an incredibly long sentence. Suggest splitting it.
  • "however despite" - I'm not a fan of this double contradiction.
  • As noted below by mujinga, there are a little too many usages of however's. In some cases, you could opt for the simpler "but".
  • "on this occasion he felt the need to say that he felt" -> "on this occasion he said that he felt"
  • "reaching the third round of the FA Cup" - let's make sure it wins here. ;)

Otherwise very well-written. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - all actioned with these edits I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fine work, Chris. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by mujinga

[edit]
  • Gillingham F.C. not Gillingham at top of infobox?
  • I'll come back to lead after reading through the article
  • "gained promotion from the Fourth Division as runners-up in 1974" - not sure if "as runners-up" is needed
  • "made his debut but was substituted" - maybe say in what minute? could then use "then" instead of "but"
  • "Two days later, Gillingham won their first league game of the season" - I'm confused, do you mean "Two days later, Gillingham won their first away league game of the season"?
    • No, it was their first win of any kind. See the results table further down -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • ah I see now! so they lost to lincoln, right Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • so I'm getting thrown off in this section by a couple of things. "The team's first game of the season was away to Lincoln City on 17 August and resulted in a 1–0 win for the home team;[10] Elsey made his debut but was substituted.[11] Gillingham finished the game with ten men after Terry Cochrane was sent off.[12] Seven days later the team played their first home Third Division game" - 1/ I think Third Division needs to be moved up to the beginning in "team's first game" to make it clear that is a Third Division game and 2/"resulted in a 1–0 win for the home team" would be clearer as "resulted in a 1–0 loss" Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They extended their unbeaten league run to seven games" - so Lincoln City was a friendly?
  • "They extended their unbeaten league run to seven games with draws against Notts County and Chesterfield and wins over Wigan Athletic and Bury,[10] after which Gillingham were fourth in the league table" - seems strange to start with they and then have Gillingham later on, suggest "The team extended ... after which they .."
  • "Cascarino was suspended" suggest "Cascarino had been suspended"
  • " two players joined Gillingham. David Tong, a midfielder, joined" - two times joined, suggest changing one
  • "The result left Gillingham in fifth place, two points off the promotion places, but they were at a disadvantage as they had played at least two games more than all the teams above them.[33] Gillingham won their next two games but then lost 1–0 at home to Newport County on 29 April." - as a general point, from the lead already onwards I'm noticing a lot of "buts" and for exampel there are two in the chunk quoted here. I'd suggest changing some, not particularly fussed how/where
  • " 102nd scored by the team in all competitions" suggest " 102nd scored by the team in all competitions in a single season" - obvious to you no doubt but i had to think about it
  • "midfielder Mehmet took over in goal after Hillyard was injured" - first mention for Mehmet so maybe full name, first mention for Hillyard after lead so maybe full name and link
  • "at home with goals from Robinson and Mehmet" - same as above for Robinson
  • "Cascarino was voted into the PFA Team of the Year" I'd say put Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year
  • "Aftermath" sounds a bit dramatic for a section header, is it standard?
  • back to lead - "After slipping to as low as ninth, the team climbed to third, but finished 1985 in eighth place. The team continued to challenge for promotion in the second half of the season and were in second place at the end of January, but their form continued to fluctuate. As the end of the season approached, the team were still in with a chance of finishing in a promotion position, but three defeats in the last six games meant that the team ultimately fell short, finishing in fifth place." - too many "buts" and the progression is strange for me. Ah now I see why, it's because "finished 1985 in" makes me think it's the end of the entire season, maybe this could be resolved by something like "After slipping to as low as ninth place, the team climbed to third, and then at the close of 1985 had fallen to eighth"
@Mujinga: - all amended other than where noted above. Many thanks for your thorough review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cool I've clarified one thing above Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: - yup, picked up that too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one for the superfast replies, I'm pretty much at support now, the one nitpick for me still outstanding is if you wordsearch "but" I still think there are too many instances, even though you have chopped out some. What do you think on that? Mujinga (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: - what can I say, I like a lot of buts and I cannot lie :-) Having said that, I have eliminated some more -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool I am now satisfied with the prose although the next reviewer may well say you have too many "howevers" :) Good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had a good look. I started reviewing the lede (above), but I really couldn't find enough here to not support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified the "slipped to ninth" bit in the lead but I'm going to respectfully disagree on the redevelopment. I don't think the creation of a few executive boxes (and it was only a few from personal recollection) and some sort of safety work is so major that it merits being in the lead. It's not like the bulldozed and rebuilt an entire stand...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC

[edit]
  • "After slipping to ninth ... finishing in fifth place." ==> "the team" is used a lot here, maybe you can replace one or two with "Gillingham" (or something else) for variation.
  • "Over the summer break" ==> I understand what you mean, but e.g. the summer months are different on the Southern Hemisphere. Maybe "During preseason" fits better?
  • "equivalent to £250,000 in 2020" and "equivalent to £180,000 in 2020" ==> how much is it in 2022 (especially with the current inflation rate...)?
  • Priestfield Stadium is linked in "season at Priestfield Stadium against" but should be linked earlier in "within Priestfield's main stand".
  • "the club's first friendly match" ==> who was Gillingham's opponent? Or were they insignificant?
  • "and AFC Bournemouth before" ==> is Bournemouth's full name needed?
  • "midfielder Dave Mehmet took over in goal" ==> I presume Mehmet took over halfway through the game?
That's all I have. Great work, Chris. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - just to let you know, I will be logging off shortly and will be off WP until some time on Friday. If any more comments are raised here, I will address them upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Add the publisher location to Bradley & Triggs. This looks like perhaps it's published by Gillingham themselves? It's only used to source a couple of minor match details, so even if so I think it's OK for reliability.

That's all I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Mike Christie: - done. Yes, it was published by the club to mark its centenary. I only used it for a couple of minor points which I surprisingly couldn't find any other source for (in other such scenarios I have used matchday programmes, but for whatever reason that season's programmes don't have reports on previous matches, only a handful of photos which didn't necessary capture the key moments.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Licensing is fine for all images.
  • ALTs for images are a bit lacking in descriptiveness.
  • The description for Priestfield1.jpg says it was taken "circa 1986" but the caption says "circa 1987". Would like to see this cleared up.
  • Caption for Cascarino's image should use "ten" instead of "10" per MOS:NUM.

Just dropping by to say well done on the prose, it's a fun read. These were the only issues I could see with the images. If possible, I would appreciate a review of any kind on my current FAC at Interstate 90. SounderBruce 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - OK to start a new nom at this point? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 April 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/1985–86_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1084684170"