Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1973–74 Gillingham 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 October 2022 [1].

1973–74 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the successful promotion of 1963–64, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, here's yet another season from the annals of Gillingham F.C. history. With this one we step back to the sensational seventies and only the second time in club history that Gillingham got promoted from one division of the Football League to another. All feedback, as ever, most gratefully received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

File:Gresty Road - geograph.org.uk - 1493956.jpg and File:Priestfield1.jpg are appropriately licensed and have appropriate ALT text. I recommend archiving the source and author links for the first image to avoid any potential future headaches with link rot and death, but that is not a requirement for a FAC/FA. I will assume good faith that the second image was taken by the uploader. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: it absolutely was. I took that picture with the first camera I ever owned! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

Not much to say, the article seems in decent shape. Strange they had own goals two weeks in a row!

There are 15 "but"s in the whole article which is arguably too much. There are four in the first paragraph of the lead and that is too many I'd say.

Per MOS:ORDINAL 2nd and 7th could be second and seventh -- Mujinga (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mujinga: - all addressed bar one point - the only "2nd" I could find was not in prose but in the infobox, is that the one you meant? Existing FAs such as 1920–21 Cardiff City F.C. season and 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season use numerics there, and IMO if Gillingham had finished 22nd rather than 2nd it would look odd to have "Twenty-second" written in full in that parameter.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I know what you mean, just wanted to query it. For me the 2nd in the infobox is ok. Sorry I also forgot to mention 9th at "In the 1972–73 season, Gillingham had finished 9th out of 24 teams in the Fourth Division". Good work on the buts! Mujinga (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mujinga: - fixed that one too! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one, changing to support Mujinga (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Yolo4A4Lo

This look good already.

There are tables that still need a caption, based on MOS:TABLECAPTION. You could use Template:Screen reader-only if you find making them visible is redundant.
"They remained in the top three and a victory over Colchester United on 20 April" Needs a comma after "three"
"Gillingham were again top of the table, however defeat to Peterborough United meant that their opponents overtook them to win the championship of the division." Change "however" to "but". See here
"Redevelopment work took place at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, between seasons..." -> Suggestion to change it into "Redevelopment work took place between seasons at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium,..."
- @Yolo4A4Lo: - am I going mad? I can't see this sentence anywhere in the article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, it seems I confused two articles. I was comparing it with other articles from the season series since I'm not familiar with it. My bad. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yolo4A4Lo: no problem :-)
"due to injuries sustained in pre-season" is pretty long, so it needs a comma.
"a Gillingham team" shouldn't it be "the team"?
"only the second". Remove "only", it's redundant.
"Although Gillingham lost their next game 2–0 away to Stockport County, they remained behind the league leaders only on goal average." -> "Gillingham remained behind the league leaders only on goal average despite losing in their next game 2–0 away to Stockport County." Suggestion to avoid repeating "although"
"they were top of the Fourth Division table," I suppose better turn that into full stop to reduce "but" after that.
"behind second-placed Gillingham" Remove "second-placed", it's just stated in the previous sentence they closed March in second place.
"in the first round, but were beaten" Remove comma.

If you like my comments, could you please take a look at FAC of Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons. You reviewed the sister article List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu last year. I would really appreciate it if you do. Good luck for your FAC! - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Going into their final game of the season on 1 May, Gillingham were again top of the table, but defeat to Peterborough United meant that their opponents overtook them to win the championship of the division - I feel like this could be condensed a bit. Perhaps lay the land that it was between first and second before noting they lost. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gillingham also competed in two knock-out competitions; the team were eliminated in the first round of the FA Cup and the second round of the Football League Cup - I feel like we could say some more details like who they lost too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

- ninth out of 24 teams i - should be consistent per MOS:NUM Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The management team retained a largely unchanged squad from the previous season, signing only Dave Coxhill, a midfielder who had been released at the end of the previous season by Millwall of the Second Division. - the management team... And then talking about a midfielder? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In June, Damien Richardson became the first player to represent his country in a full international match while on the books at Gillingham, when he played for the Republic of Ireland in a friendly away to Norway. - "on the books" is a bit overkill. Why not "first Gillingham player to play a full international match?"
four friendlies in August, including games against Luton Town and Sheffield Wednesday of the Second Divisio - it's four, why not say all of them? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 1971 - we could just say "in 1971". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of January Gillingham - comma. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really "goal average" back then? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:, just wondering if you had had a chance to look at this FAC yet? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I've had a lot on. I'll do some notes now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - all done apart from the one re: "The management team retained a largely unchanged squad....." - it might be me being thick but I don't follow what you are saying there. Oh, and yes it was still goal average in 1973-74 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I read it as "The management team was largely unchanged". I'm a dumbo. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Missing the publisher location on Bradley & Triggs (1994).
You include publishers for all web citations except newspapers.com; just checking that this is deliberate?
FN 52 is not displaying the original URL link, only the archive link. I think this is because the url-status field says "bot: unknown".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - 1 and 3 addressed. For 2, all the newspapers.com links are to digitised versions of old newspapers, so I have entered the paper as the "work" and I don't believe there is a need for a separate "publisher" parameter, as it would most likely just duplicate the "work". Hope that makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK on the first two. For FN 52, the URL still doesn't display -- I think you need to set url-status to whatever is correct in this situation. I'd fix it myself but since you're using sfn I can't edit it with VE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: sorted now, I think......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks good. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

@FAC coordinators: may I open a new FAC now? I have a doozy ready to go next :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2022 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 20:01, 24 October 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.