Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gillingham F.C.

< 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 21:12, 19 September 2007.

History of Gillingham F.C. edit

This article was originally forked off from the main Gillingham F.C. article due to its length, but I see no reason why it couldn't also reach FA status, so I've been working hard on it over the last few weeks, and would now appreciate feedback on whether or not it's reached the required standard.

Many thanks!!!!

ChrisTheDude 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Comment: Informative article, but there are probably some prose issues that ought to be addressed: and all of my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to be a common confusion in articles about sports teams whether to use the singular or the plural. "... renamed itself Gillingham F.C ..." "...Gillingham, now back in their earlier kit ...". "... the team scored a record total of 90 league goals on their way to finishing as runners-up ..." Which is Gillingham F.C./the team? Is it an "it" or a "they"? Whichever it is, I think it ought to be that consistently.
      • In British English the club as a whole is generally considered singular but the actual playing team plural, if that makes sense. I've fixed both the sentences you mention, let me know if there are any inconsistent usages
  • Makes perfect sense, but I just plucked a few out almost at random, to demonstrate the point. I think the whole article needs to be checked. For instance, I just found this: "In 1899 the team reached the first round proper of the FA Cup for the first time, where they lost ..." It does seem to be stretching grammar to have a singular subject and then a plural pronoun later in the sentence. But if that's the way that all football articles are written, then I'll have to defer to that common useage. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I'll go through and re-check every usage of "the club"/"the team"/"Gillingham" when I haven't got a two-year-old demanding that I play with him :-) ChrisTheDude 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've now reworded every such sentence to avoid any grammatical stretching :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs) 08:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This remains to this day ..." Isn't "to this day" redundant?
      • Fixed
    • "... Gillingham played in the Kent League (not the same league that exists today) ..." Why provide a wikilink to the Kent League, if it isn't the same league that Gillingham played in?
      • Fixed - the Kent League article does now cover both incarnations of the league
    • " ... wrote his name into the record books ..." doesn't seem like encyclopedic language. --Malleus Fatuarum 2:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man
  • No need to make The bold in the lead, just "history of Gillingham F.C.".
    • fixed
  • Headings - you say "The Early Years"... WP:HEAD suggests not to overcapitalise, so it ought to be "The early years:..." etc.
    • fixed
  • "...the Gills are playing in..." hmmm, I know this is fact but the phrasing leaves something to be desired. Not sure what yet...
    • fixed (removed)
  • "Gillingham has traditionally been one of the league's smaller clubs..." - what does this really mean? Traditionally is a bit PoV/euphemistic?
    • fixed (removed)
  • Wikilink full dates, e.g. "September 2 1893" should be "September 2, 1893,"
    • fixed (I think - have I missed any.....?)
  • Oh, and "On September 2 1893, New Brompton's first competitive match took place on September 2 1893..." repeats the date.
    • fixed
  • Acceptance into the FA Cup etc was in the same year as the club's foundation? If so, make it clearer, if not, specify when.
    • fixed (removed - wording in the source is unclear)
  • It's probably a personal thing but I don't like stuff in parentheses when it's better either pipe wikilinked or written in the prose (i.e. "(1894–95)").
    • fixed
  • My usual pet hate - us Brits ought to propound the use of First World War ahead of its US prequel/sequel counterparts of WWI and WWII.
    • fixed
  • "Football League Division Three" - is there an appropriate wikilink for this?
    • where's that? it's linked the first time it's used, and further linking would be over-linking surely....?
  • "...but it was not enough to save Gillingham from having to apply for re-election to the league."- I know what you mean but it wasn't just that game that caused the Gills to be forced to reapply was it?
    • fixed (I think)
  • "...but it was a feat which could not be repeated and the team returned to struggling at the foot of the table once again.[15]" - is that applicable to the following season? If so, state it.
    • fixed
  • I've seen in other articles the Third Division South being referred to as Third Division (South). What do you think? In fact you link Football League Division Three South later. Hmmm....
    • fixed - I've changed it to "Third Division South" throughout, as that's how the appropriate WP article is titled
  • No need to overlink striker.
    • fixed
  • "...could have given him ten..." - not sure this is really necessary, if he hit the bar late on and had nine already, it's pretty clear he could have made double figures. I know what you're getting at though, so perhaps a careful rewording?
    • fixed (I think - let me know what you think)
  • "hot-seat" - non encyclopaedic term I'm afraid.
    • fixed
  • ref [35] & [57] aren't correctly placed per WP:CITE.
    • fixed
  • "...record total of 90 league goals..." - league or club record?
    • fixed

That's about it for now. Let me know if I can help with anything, and if you'd like me to re-assess. The Rambling Man 17:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Thanks for your attention to my detail, so I'm glad to offer my support. The Rambling Man 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - can't see any problems. Epbr123 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The 1934–35 season was marked by tragedy when, in a match against Brighton & Hove Albion on December 1, centre-forward Sim Raleigh, the club's top scorer the previous season and a player seen as a future star,[22] suffered a brain haemorrhage following a blow to the head." "Tragedy" should not be used per WP:WTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carabinieri (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten it to remove the offending word ChrisTheDude 06:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Gillingham_F.C.&oldid=159081984"