Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1994–95 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) 24 March 2022 [1].

1994–95 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following successful nominations for 1986–87, 1995–96, 1999–2000, 1987–88, 1998–99, 1996–97, 2000–01 and 1992–93, here's another season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This one was another general disaster of a season, in which the club struggled through a number of crises and ended the season facing the possibility of going out of existence altogether. Happy times..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass: no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 11 February 2022 (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

club was saved from going out of business - feels a bit of the nose to me. I know what it means, but I'm not convinced that the purchase alone resolved the issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
knock-out competitions pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FA Premier League - can probably either say "Premier League", or "Premiership", as that's what it was at the time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: - the official name of the competition has never been "Premiership" at any point in its history. That was a sponsored name imposed by Carling and we don't use sponsored names on WP. The official name was FA Premier League up to 2007 and Premier League thereafter, as reflected here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should probably mention that Smillie was already assistant coach. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Rochdale pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a lot of duplicate links in the article that should be cleaned up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 January, the club was declared insolvent and placed in administrative receivership; after nearly a decade of financial difficulties, the club's debts were estimated at approximately £2 million (equivalent to £3.9 million in 2020). - I feel like this sentence should be flipped, so talk about the debt, and then the cost of the dept (admin). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tables should have headers for WP:ACCESS. I've done one for you to show what I mean. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's been discussed before, but why is the prose split and have tables inside? Wouldn't a summary section be better with the stats in it's own section? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: - apologies, it might be me being thick (it's been a long day) but I am unsure quite what change you are proposing. This article follows the same structure as the 7 (hopefully soon to be 8) successful promotions referenced above, so I'd be reluctant to make wholesale changes to the format (which I originally pinched from 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season, promoted last year)....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, I get that you use this structure in all of your other FAs (which is great), I'm just not convinced it is the best solution. Most articles on wikipedia group together statistics into one section, or area, rather than splitting them into the prose. I'd like some sort of discussion on it, but it's not going to prevent a support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above all addressed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2022 (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)} 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. Looks pretty clean; just a couple of points below.

"In Foster's absence, Andy Arnott was brought into the starting line-up against Scunthorpe for the first time since the opening game of the season, but neither he nor fellow forward Paul Baker were able to score in either game, with both finishing 3–0 to Gillingham's opponents." Too complicated; I think this should be broken up or rephrased. "Either game"'s referent is quite a long way back. If that can be fixed, "with Gillingham losing both games 0-3" or something similar might work.
The three consecutive defeats spanning the year-end are mentioned in both the "August-December" and "January-May" sections; I'd cut the former.
"a player exchange deal also involving Robbie Reinelt": why "also"? Do you mean Reinelt arrived rather than left? If so I'd make it plainer: "that also brought Robbie Reinelt to Gillingham", for example.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - many thanks for your review, all comments addressed I think. Just to clarify my edit re: your first comment, in football parlance (certainly in the UK) a score is always expressed with the larger value first, irrespective of whether you are discussing a team winning or losing. So we say "Gillingham won 3-0" but we also say "Gillingham lost 3-0", not 0-3....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good; I'm British and should know about 3-0 vs. 0-3, but evidently I've been in the US too long. And thanks for fixing my loose copyedit; I can't believe I made that mistake! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru

Lead

"In June, however, the club was purchased by businessman Paul Scally." - having said "but" in the previous sentence, this feels like a few too many buts. Can it be joined to the previous sentence with somthing like "remained in doubt until..." ?
The second paragraph says "the team" four times, which feels slightly repetitive.

Background

"in the fourth tier of the English football league system, which had been named the Football League Third Division since 1992" - minor point, and the same construct appears in your other FAs, but the "which" is slightly ambiguous here. It could (and does) mean that the fourth tier is named the FL 3rd div, but another way to parse it is that the whole English football league system is named the FL 3rd division.

Third Division

"Carlisle won 1–0 meaning that Gillingham finished the year 18th in the table" - sounds slightly odd, as the year-end finish isn't a direct result of the Gillingham result. Maybe decouple them slightly.

Cup matches

The first sentence of this section feels somewhat long. Maybe break into a new sentence after "three levels lower in the English football league system".
"Due to the inadequacy of Heybridge's stadium" - "inadequacy" sounds a slightly vague and subjective term; maybe say it didn't meet the regulations or something?
"Wednesday took a 2–0 lead" - probably "Sheffield Wednesday", as we usually avoid contractions that aren't the straight name of the city I think... unless I'm wrong. We particularly wouldn't say "United" etc.
"by virtue of..." - sounds slightly idiomatic; maybe reword per MOS:IDIOM

That's about it... Surprisingly little for me to pick up on here, so well done! — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - many thanks for your review, all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - any other comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry I completely forgot to come back here. All looks good, support. — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All sources are appropriately formatted and reliable.
I suggest archiving the sources using this link in case one of the links dies. FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - OK to start another FAC.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 15 March 2022 (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) 12:48, 24 March 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.