Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1905–06 New Brompton 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2022 [1].

1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regulars at FAC will be aware that I have recently successfully promoted 17 articles on individual seasons in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. A little while back I was asked on my talk page how far back in time I reckoned I could go with these, so here's what I came up with. Just to confirm, this is also a season from the history of Gillingham F.C. but the club was not called that until 1912. If successful I believe this will be the chronologically earliest "club season" article to make it to FA status. One image was taken from a contemporary newspaper and three from a book published in 1906, which I could not afford to buy but have access to facsimile pages. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from NØ edit

  • Is there any part of the lead that should be bolded to correspond to the article title?
  • "New Brompton finished the season 17th out of 18 teams in the division" - Maybe this could be something like "New Brompton finished the season in the 17th place out of 18 teams in the division" so it's clear that 17th isn't referring to the season number.
  • "The club did not employ a manager at the time, with club secretary William..." - The second "club" could be eliminated to avoid repetition, which probably wouldn't be detrimental to understanding it.
  • "His total of five goals was the lowest to date" - maybe "His total of five goals was the lowest ever"
    • Done (albeit slightly differently - a lot of reviewers seem to frown on the use of "ever" in that context......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another great article, and even as someone who is not into sports I found it engaging. If you have some free time I would appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Regards.--NØ 05:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review. Responses above. I will endeavour to look at your FAC over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--NØ 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

  • I used to argue with my Wikipedia mentor, Brian Boulton, about whether the standard of prose in sports articles needed to be as high as that for biographies, arts articles etc. My view is that in an article about sport the reviewer can take a less austere view, and so, e.g., the tabloidese false title, familiar enough from sports journalism, passes muster, and I shan't bleat on about the likes of "with secretary William Ironside Groombridge" "to fellow Southern League Division One club" etc.
  • "at the first round stage" – might be as well to hyphenate "first-round" when used attributively, as here.
    • Done -- 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • You give The Dell a capital T in mid-sentence, but our article on the stadium does not.
    • Done -- 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • My only other query is about singular -v- plural: "New Brompton were not relegated to Division Two … The club, which changed its name to Gillingham" (my italics): it seems inconsistent to my non-sporty eye, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
    • This hinges essentially on the fact that the name "New Brompton" represents two things: the team of players on the pitch (treated as plural in British English) and the club as a company/organisation (treated as singular). So we would say that "New Brompton (the team) were beaten" but "New Brompton (the club) was founded". Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to my inexpert eye to be of FA standard, but I'd prefer to wait to see what other and better-informed reviewers think of the content before I sign up to supporting. – Tim riley talk 12:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: - many thanks for your review, responses as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They make perfect sense to me. I'll look in again when other reviewers have had their say. Tim riley talk 17:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, I know you're a regular reviewer at FAC, and as I'm so far the only reviewer here, I venture to draw it to your attention. (Full disclosure: the nominator is a friend of mine IRL.) Tim riley talk 18:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick heads-up if the co-ords take a look at this over the next few days. After today (Friday 21st) I will be offline for a few days. If any comments are raised, I will address them when I am back online (probably Tuesday evening) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the comments from editors better informed than I am about the subject I am happy to add my support. The prose suffices, the sourcing looks broad and appropriate, the illustrations are well chosen (and rather endearing), and the treatment looks balanced and proportionate. Meets the FAC criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 21:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Priestfield1906.jpg: what is the status of this work in its source country? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: well it was published in 1906 and the book gives no indication of the identity of the photographer, so as far as I am aware it would be PD. I have added the relevant tag -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 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
  • I do think it's wise if we state what division (tier) we are talking about. "Southern League Division one" could be the highest, or like now, it's the sixth tier. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBH the concept of tiers did not exist in this time period. During this particular season, only four teams from the south of England played in the Football League, but the Southern League was not really regarded as being "below" the FL, it was just sort of parallel (ish), as evidenced by the fact that when the Charity Shield was launched in 1908, it was between the winners of the two leagues. But I don't know exactly how I would express that in the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I found a way to express it without lurching into OR territory..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we not incorporate the chairman and ref into the prose somehow? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team played 37 - this is just after talking about the FA Cup, which suggests they played 37 matches in the cup, which is obviously wrong. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
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) 11:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: apologies for the ping, but just wondered if you might get a chance to do your review in the next few days.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Got a bit caught up with the finale of the wikicup. I'll get on it tonight! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: - just wondering if there were any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lee Vilenski, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • No dab links
  • I notice James Barnes is listed as chairman in the infobox but not mentioned in the article?
  • "with secretary William Ironside Groombridge having overall responsibility for the team." - I feel like there has to be a way to rephrase this with a better verb than having, lol. What about "The club did not employ a manager at the time, although secretary William Ironside Groombridge held overall responsibility for the team"?
  • "Joe Elliott and Travers" - did you only use first names for the prior two in the section because they were both Joe? Otherwise not sure why only the last name was used for Travers
  • Sources seem fine.
  • Not sure the duplicate links to positions are needed in the players section

Otherwise, nicely written and well-organized article. Support ceranthor 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: re: "Joe Elliott and Travers" - players' forenames are only used the first time they are mentioned in the article, otherwise it's just surname per MOS:SURNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Are the other comments addressed? ceranthor 22:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: as far as I can see yes they are -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass) edit

  • All the citations appear to be reliable and high-quality for a FA, particularly one about this subject matter.
  • I do not see any major issues with the citation structures, although I do have some more minor comments and questions below.
  • For the newspaper citations, I would include the page number in the citation.
  • Some of the book citations have a location, while a majority do not have one. I would be consistent one way or the other.
  • I have done a brief spot check and the information appears to be supported in the citations and the information in the citation (i.e. title and date) matches up.
  • This is more of a clarification question, and I imagine I already know the answer. Are there any websites that cover this season? All the citations are either from newspapers or books, and while I can understand if the coverage of the season is restricted to these mediums, I just wanted to make sure about this anyway.
    • Unfortunately there's not really much detail about Southern League football from this era on websites apart from probably the final league tables..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification and for checking up on this matter. I am not surprising that web sources have not covered a season that is over 100 years ago at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this source review is helpful. Once my above points have been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: many thanks for the source review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 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/1905–06_New_Brompton_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1121840534"