Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

wikicup
once this review is over.

Lede
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • with maximum points - seems implied from four wins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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

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

Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN5 is missing author
  • Don't mix {{
    cite
    }}-family templates
  • 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]
  • 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]

Support by Cas Liber

Image review

Don't see any issues with licensing (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1995–96_Gillingham_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1041698213"