Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1996–97 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 14 December 2021 [1].

1996–97 Gillingham F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from five successful nominations, here is another eventful season from the history of English association football club Gillingham. In this particular season, the "Gills" defeated a team from the top division of English football for the first time in nearly 90 years and had a player miss a match because he'd been shot!! Never a dull moment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "the 1995–96 English football season, the" maybe pipe to "previous season"?
  • "65th season playing" do we need that quick repeat of "season".
  • "The most notable new signing" that's POV.
  • "£235,000" could inflate since it was 25 years ago (*gulp*).
  • "club, both as a ... the club's" repetitive.
  • Bradford City is an A.F.C. as is Wrexham and Swansea City.
  • "against Bristol City. New" overlinked.
  • "and scored the" to score (to avoid the and ... and...)
  • "scored two goals from penalty kicks against" perhaps tighten to "scored two penalty kicks"?
  • "suffering a serious injury" what was the nature of this?
    • I don't know, I couldn't find a source that was that specific. I've downgraded the description to simply "an injury", as on re-checking the sources it isn't described as "serious" (although he did miss five games....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Watford.[23] It " overlinked.
  • "away to Burnley, who" ditto.
  • "Due to the postponement of a number..." what caused the postponement, bad weather?
    • I guess so, but I don't have a specific source for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Crewe Alexandra, the" overlinked.
  • "placed Watford, Butler" same.
  • " Rotherham United and Bristol City.[28] " both of these too.
  • "ended the month of March" no need for "the month of".
  • "against AFC Bournemouth in identical" overlinked.
  • "defeating Millwall, Walsall and Shrewsbury Town." all overlinked.
  • Link Chapman consistently.
  • "the 1996-97 FA Cup in" en-dash.
  • "of the Third Division." overlinked.
  • "due to the state of the frozen pitch" is "the state of" needed?
  • "all unavailable" why?
  • "the 1996-97 Football League Cup in " en-dash.
  • "level opponents.[48] Gillingham's opponents" repetitive.
  • "played Cardiff City of the" overlinked.
  • Consider telling us when the pictures of the players were taken, Akinbiyi's looks like it was 12/13 years after this specific season.
  • "the 1997–98 season mounting" perhaps "following season" instead.

That's it for the article, I'll take a look at sources at some point if that's useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mike Christie edit

Support. I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with. I only have one comment, which is that if we're going to mention Hessenthaler setting a transfer fee record in the lead, I think we should also mention in the lead that the record was surpassed mid-season by Akinbiyi. I'm not going to hold up support over that; this is a straightforwardly written article that covers its ground well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: - that's a good shout - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Another comment: have you considering pulling the occasional quote from newspaper coverage? For this season I would think only the defeat of Coventry would warrant it, but sometimes match reports are entertainingly written and it seems like something that could liven up the article. This is a general comment about season articles, not a criticism of this one, and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a match report quote about the Cov win -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon edit

This is in fine shape. Not much to quibble about.

  • Gillingham played poorly and lost 2–0 --> is that "poorly" your point of view?
    • No, it's summarising the source on that sentence, which says that the defence made mistakes to allow Derby to score and the attack was ineffectual
  • Aftermath: a bit too much detail of the next season I think. 1 line should suffice. What I would expect is a summary of players who left the club after the season.
    • Done

That's all. I might unwillingly have become a Gillingham supporter by now :) I will do a spotcheck of sources soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many thanks for your review, and I hope you don't mind the abject misery that comes with being a Gills fan right now *ahem*going down*ahem*sack the manager*ahem* -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • perhaps it would be good to archive some urls
  • Formatting looks ok to me
  • Spotcheck: #7 #8 #25 #26 #31 #37 #68 are all ok
  • #28 does not seem to cover "putting them in the relegation places"
    • Added a second ref which confirms that the bottom four were the relegation places -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #32 seems to cover only the "After this run, Gillingham had climbed to 15th in the table" bit, not the previous sentence
    • The previous sentence was simply distilling info from the (sourced) match details table, but for 100% coverage I have added the source to that sentence too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me. I Support on prose and sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: - Are you okay with this counting as a formal source review? Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the sources for a formal source review, but saw these comments. I found virtually no issues with sources, if extra assurance is needed. Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - this one now seems to have three supports on prose and source review and image review passes. Am I now OK to nominate another article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Pass edit

  • On reliability, the only source I'd maybe question is the one in the Sunday Mirror. It's such an unobjectionable fact though, and WP:DAILYMIRROR isn't actually deprecated so I'll let it go.
  • I can't see any formatting problems anywhere, so well done there.
Spot checks
  • Quite a lot of it is cited to books, so is there any chance you could email me photos of a few of them? Let's say, if you can, please send over "Triggs 2001 p156", "Rollins 1997 pp578–579" and "Borwn 2003 p107" that will be enough, just for a sanity check really given that you've done loads of these before!
  • 7 - checks out
  • 23 - checks out
  • 26 - minor point, but the source says he received two yellow cards, with the throwing-the-ball-at-the-linesman incident being only the second of them.
  • 54 - boo... what a terrible result! (checks out though)
  • 68 - the meat of the sentence this supports is "Gillingham began the following season mounting a challenge for promotion, which would take the club to the second tier of English football for the first time" but the BBC report from the 2000 play-off final only really supports the last part of this. If the "mounting a challenge for promotion" part is actually in Brown 1998 p28, then I suggest moving ref 68 to the end of the paragraph next to ref 69.

That's all. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Amakuru: there doesn't appear to be any option to add attachments when emailing someone from their user page. If you can email me, I'll reply with the pictures..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I just remembered I have a dropbox account. Not used it for a long time :-) Will send you the link :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, duly received!
  • Ref 6 - Regarding the Triggs p156 cite, the sentence mentions a transfer fee of £235,000 but I'm not seeing that on the page you sent me.
  • Ref 48 - can't see the Swansea first-leg score, as it's off the bottom of the page you sent, but I'll take your word for it! Second leg checks out.
  • Ref 51 - checks out; although I assume the book has a misprint - if home matches are supposed to be written with the opponents in capital letters, then the two Coventry games are the wrong way round. The October one definitely seems to have been the home leg and looks like the largest home crowd of the season though.

So maybe just a quick look at those minor omissions from refs 26 and 6, and then good to go. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Amakuru: - both sorted (in the case of the Triggs ref, the specific fee is actually on the page before so I have amended the ref accordingly) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one, thanks Chris. Happy to pass on sourcing.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2021 (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. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 14 December 2021 (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/1996–97_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1060349871"