Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991–92 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2022 [1].

1991–92 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 12th nomination of an article on an individual season in the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham. In comparison to some of my prior nominations, this was a comparatively uneventful season, with one writer commenting at the end of the season on how the team were essentially utterly average, but hopefully I have managed to turn it into a reasonably engaging read. Feedback as ever most gratefully received! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from WA8MTWAYC

"The team began the season with a 4–0 victory" ==> against?
"Gillingham's final match of 1991" and "Gillingham ended the year" ==> feels a bit repetitive
Ref 31: Brown 2003, p. tbc. ==> what does this mean?
"until October 1992" ==> if the run was 30 away league matches, shouldn't the date be October 1993?
In the results box in the Associate Members' Cup section, the (H) is missing behind Maidstone United
"until they were promoted in 1996" ==> maybe: until they gained promotion to the Second Division in 1996?
That's it. Great work as usual, Chris. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @WA8MTWAYC: - thanks for the review and the kind words. All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Some sentences are a little on the short side but no deal-breakers are in the text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AryKun

AK

Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
Made some very minor edits.
"first defender to score two goals on his debut in the club's history" This really feels like extreme trivia, what with the four qualifiers to make this a relevant statistic in any way.
Would it be worth color-coding the results in the table?
That's all I could find, nice work! AryKun (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: I removed the trivia fact about Richard Green. I don't see any particular value in colour coding the results and it would also make this article inconsistent with other football season FAs such as yesterday's TFA -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, nothing else I can quibble about so a support from me on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Kavyansh

Check p./pp. for the following:

Ref#14: Rollin 1992, p. 234 –235.
Ref#47: Rollin 1992, p. 624, 626.
Ref#50: Rollin 1992, p. 643, 644
Ref#52: Rollin 1992, p. 641, 643, 644.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

Another season: I admire your great stamina to keep working on these articles! I Support on prose. A spot check:

all fine are: 17, 23, 27, 29, 36, 42, 43, 59, 61, 63
18 confirms their new position in the table, but we need something to back up the 1 point from 5 games
19 confirms the Barnet draw but we need something else for the 4 defeats

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - sorted! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then it's a Pass for source review: good quality sourcing and formatting is sound as well. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

@FAC coordinators: - with four supports on prose and completed image and source reviews, am I OK to open a new FAC? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - anyone? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free. Sorry I missed this one the other day. Hog Farm _Talk 14:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thanks for the all-clear, and I hope you have a great weekend! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 6 May 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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 18 May 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.