Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995–96 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [1].

1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I have an FAC running (but near to completion, by the look of things) about a season which started with Gillingham F.C. in financial difficulties and ended with them coming within 10 minutes of getting promoted to a higher division. Now I present for you a season which started with Gillingham F.C. in financial difficulties and ended with them actually getting promoted to a higher division. If you wanted to see lots of goals being scored, this was definitely not the season to be a Gillingham fan, but hey - promotion is promotion :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (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

being in administrative receivership - could we use a better phrase, or explain this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
almost the entire season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third division is linked twice in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lowest division of the Football League - worth stating what this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the most games for Gillingham, being absent for only of the team's 54 matches; - something is missing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link clean sheet Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A record for whom? The team, the league, the nation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Pulis significantly rebuilt the team, signing eight new players ahead of the new season. Three new signings were announced at the same time as Scally's takeover was completed - the timing is off here. Scally brough in Pulis, who brought in these players... But the players were announced as signings the same time Scally was appointed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The finalisation of the takeover, the appointment of Pulis, and the first three signings were genuinely all announced at the same press conference - it's on the season review DVD which I have, and if you search "1995-96 Gillingham season preview" on YouTube you should be able to watch it (don't want to link to an obvious copyvio here). I can only presume that Scally was already in talks with Pulis, and had him looking at players, before the takeover was 100% nailed down..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really "non-League"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Because it was originally "football that isn't part of the Football League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and returned for a second spell; - superfluous Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
provided a funding boost for a club still on shaky financial ground - seems a bit editorialised to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caption:suffered a serious injury in November - should really comment what this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
with maximum points - seems implied from four wins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
team held another promotion-chasing team - this is the first time we've mentioned that they were challenging for promotion,I thought they were just trying to stay afloat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the fact that they were in second place put them in the promotion chase by definition, I would say. Any suggestions for a re-word? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so far is present tense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple jargon terms that need a link on first use, such as "sent off" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked sent off. What else do I need to pick up? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
both clubs were later disciplined by the football authorities for failing to control their players - how? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fellow Third Division championship challengers Chester City - we've already established Chester at this point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The season was notable for the team's strong defence but also low goalscoring - grammar feels a little off here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiff drew with Hereford and then beat Gillingham 3–2 - feels weird to me that we are talking about from Cardiff POV and not Gillingham. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
both records for a 46-match League season - once again, for whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)} 14:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - many thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - just checking if you had any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WA8MTWAYC

"Gillingham F.C. competed in the Football League Third Division" ==> maybe indicate that the Third Div was actually the fourth tier back then.
"It was the 64th season in which the club competed in the Football League, and the 46th since the club was voted back into the league in 1950." ==> the club ... the club is repetitive
"three positions in the Football League Third Division" ==> I don't think "Football League" is needed here
"Having signed ... league system." ==> this is quite long and should probably be split.
"drawing 20" and "only managed two draws and" ==> link draw
"being absent for only of the team's 54 matches" ==> "one" is missing between only and of.
"He appointed former Gillingham player Tony Pulis as the club's new manager" ==> who did Pulis succeed at Gillingham?
- Technically nobody. The club hadn't had a permanent manager since February; Neil Smillie had been caretaker manager while the club was in administration, but he was let go as soon as the preceding season ended, so nobody at all was in post prior to the takeover. I changed it to say that Scally appointed Pulis to the vacant post of manager. Do you think any more than that needs to be said? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That will do. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and shortly before the first match of the season Mark Harris and Dominic Naylor arrived from Swansea City and Plymouth Argyle respectively" ==> maybe put a comma between season and Mark and Argyle and respectively.
"league table; It was" ==> it was
The table under FL Cup shows Gillingham were eliminated in the first round, but the infobox states it was in the second.
In the table under FL Trophy, "Hereford United (A)" ==> Hereford United (H)
According to Alan Nicholls's wiki page, he died on 25 Nov instead of the 23rd.
That's what I have. The article looks great. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @WA8MTWAYC: - all done bar one question -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - With my comments now addressed, I support this nom. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47

For the caption for this image (File:Leo Fortune-West 3.png), I would include the year that the photo was taken as you have done with the other images in the article.
For this part, Gillingham also reached the third round of the FA Cup, I do not believe "also" is necessary here as it seems more like a filler word. The other two instances of "also" in the article seem appropriate to me.

These are the only things that I have noticed, which makes sense as this FAC has already received two reviews. Once my two very nitpick-y comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I am not familiar with association football, or sports in general, but I understood everything in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: -- done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

FN5 is missing author
- Ref 5 is a citation to the Elligate book, I am guessing that isn't the one you meant.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, FN6. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Soccerdata a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: they are the UK's leading publisher of football reference books with a catalogue of hundreds of publications. They have published volumes in the "Definitive" series for something like 30 different clubs. The Gillingham volume has been used as a main source in three recently-promoted FAs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a reference re: "leading publisher"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: Not specifically, but they have been publishing specialist football reference books for over 25 years and you will find their publications in all major bookstores. They have published books by authors including Jack Rollin, who edited the Rothman's Football Yearbook for about 30 years, and the author of the Gillingham volume, Tony Brown, is or was a member of the Association of Football Statisticians, a data partner of the Football Association, the governing body of the sport in England. Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria:, just wondering if you still needed anything from me on this source review? All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cas Liber

Support on comprehensiveness and prose (coming late to the party) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't see any issues with licensing (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 26 August 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 31 August 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.