Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1963–64 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2022 [1].

1963–64 Gillingham F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After my most recent FAC nomination, which was about one of the most catastrophic seasons in the history of my favourite football club, I needed to write about something more positive, hence this one. I don't personally remember this season, as it was [mumble] years before I was born, but it was enjoyable to write about and to take a peek into the heady days when floodlights were a new concept, goal average was used, and players were called things like Geoff and Brian :-) Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 edit

Prose review

  • "in which Gillingham competed in the Football League," Should "the" be included in the wikilink? It's not part of the bolded phrase in English Football League
  • "Gillingham began the season with an unbeaten run of 13 games, the longest such run from the start of the season by any team in the Football League," I'm not liking the repetition of "run". Maybe, "Gillingham were undefeated in their first 13 games, the longest such streak from the start of the season by any team in the Football League," or something similar
  • "The team played a total of 52 competitive matches," Delete "a total of" as redundant
  • "and a total of 18 in all competitions." Same as above
  • After re-reading the lede, I'm surprised that there is no mention of the team leaving the relegation zone during the season in Jan/Feb and the fan's reaction. This feels like a key detail to me.
  • I checked the lede, and all of its information is in the article body.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - many thanks for your review, all points addressed. On point 2, I have used your wording other than the word "streak", which we really don't use in that context in British English. On point 5, I think you have conflated a couple of issues (the team didn't drop out of the top 4 until April, and the fans' anger in January was merely to do with the team's dour tactics) but I think I have covered the points you were referring to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • I would recommend separating the lede's first paragraph in two. It is a rather intimidating large block of text right at the start.
  • For this part, would not win another for nearly 50 years, in the lede, wouldn't it be better to be more specific and use the exact number of years?
  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. File:Priestfield2.jpg says the image was taken circa 1986, but the image caption in the article goes for a more general mid-1980s. Is there a reason for this difference?
    • Mainly that I was too lazy to check the image page for a more specific date of when I took the picture. Amended now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another clarification question. For this part, 22 players made at least one appearance, I am guessing words are used rather number as you do not want to start a sentence with numbers. Would that be correct?

The article is in solid shape. I am very much a non-expert so I can only comment on the actual prose, but I do not have much to say in my review. Once my comments (and clarification questions) have been addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion on the basis of the prose. Wonderful job with handling a topic that is now over 50 years old. That is impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Aoba47: - many thanks for your review and your kind words. All addressed now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your very prompt responses. I support this FAC based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14 edit

Trying to expand my horizons as a reviewer. Non-expert review on prose:

  • to overtake Gillingham push them out of the promotion places -- I think it needs an “and” before push.
  • for the first time in September 1963 -- there needs to be {{nbsp}} between September and 1963, per MOS:NBSP.
  • The club signed four new players prior to the new season: Geoff Hudson, a 31-year old full-back with well over a decade of Football League experience, joined from Crewe Alexandra, and Cox signed three young players from Portsmouth, all of whom he knew from his time managing that club until 1961: Rod Taylor, a half-back aged 19, 21-year-old full-back Jimmy White, and Brian Yeo, a forward also aged 19. -- this is quite a long sentence. Perhaps split and separate the 3 Portsmouth players into another.
  • A 1–0 victory two days later away to York made absolutely certain that Gillingham would be promoted. -- This might be a personal taste but I think you could use "guaranteed" instead of "made absolutely certain"

A great read and comprehensive coverage overall. Not much to quibble. --Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review. All the above points now addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Excellently written. If you have the time or inclination, was wondering if you would be so kind to provide your feedback on my current FAC. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Version reviewed. Spot-checks not included.

  • This is optional: I would add a |url-access=subscription parameter to sources from Newspaper.com. Although one doesn't need a subscription to view the clippings, but anything beyond that is limited to subscribers.
  • Inconsistent use of publishers in sources 54 and 55. I would just pipe KM Media Group to Kent Online and remove Kent Messenger Group.

Otherwise sources are reliable and properly formatted. FrB.TG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - many thanks for your review - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query edit

@FAC coordinators: - at this point may I open a new nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:56, 25 August 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/1963–64_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1109457786"