Gillingham F.C.

I've been working very hard over the last week or so to improve the quality of this article. I've:

• Added references to the entirety of the article
• Got rid of twaddle like "famous fans"
• Got rid of bullet point lists
• Added images
• Tightened up the quality of the writing
• probably some other stuff I've forgotten :-)

I'd now like to get people's feedback on the article and what needs to be done to get it to GA status and beyond.

I'll pre-emptively address one point which people might bring up, namely recentism. Although the last twelve years gets the most in-depth coverage within the article, this isn't just because it's the most recent period but because the most significant events in the club's history (nearly going bust, best cup run, two Wembley appearances, first ever spell at Championship level) all occurred in this era, hence I think the level of coverage is appropriate.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what people think - all comments appreciated!

Cheers

ChrisTheDude 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mattythewhite

Very good job you've got done there so far. Here are some tips that might help:

• An article should be created for the history section, I would recommend creating at History of Gillingham F.C., and the history section in the Gillingham F.C. article should be more of a summary of this.
  • Done
• Seasons should be linked e.g. 1894-95 should be 1894–95 (with an endash).
  • Done
• I would recommend placing inline citations right after what it is referencing, not having a small gap next to it.
  • Done
• I think an article for the records section (e.g. Gillingham F.C. records) would be helpful, and mentioning the main records in prose in the records section.
  • Done

Can't really think of anything else. I'm not quite sure about the given criteria for notable players, but I'm not too sure on that. I would recommend looking at FA-class football club articles such as Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C. to get an idea on how to improve it. In my opinion we're looking at a future FA candidate here, I think GA would be an underachievement. Hope my comments help. Mattythewhite 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My responses

Thanks for the kind words. To address your points:

• I didn't initally split off the history because I didn't feel that a club of the Gills' stature merited a separate history article, but if others concur that this should be done I will organise it
  • Done this now, will now start reducing the extent of the history coverage in the main article
• OK, I'll sort that later today
• OK, I'll sort that later today
• As per my comment on the history really, I can sort that out if it's felt it would improve this particular article

Thanks once again for your comments ChrisTheDude 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

Might as well start with the bit I immediately looked for due to having been there. While I'm as far as you can get from being neutral on the matter, calling the injury time in the 1999 playoff final "hotly-disputed" is POV. Attributing something along those lines to a quote from Tony Pulis' post-match interview might work. I have a couple of newspapers from the day after somewhere, might be a while before I get the opportunity to dig them out though. I'm pretty sure it was five minutes of injury time, not six. The next sentence is a little out of context - it makes it sound as though the playoff final was an act of gross misconduct by Pulis.

Done

Removing the sky blue tinted glasses:

• The history section has one or two too many subheadings; some subsections have only three or four sentences. These sections also have quite a few single sentence paragraphs, which should either be beefed up or merged.
  • Done
• I agree with your point about devoting more to the recent history, but one area which suffers from recentism is the list of players who subsequently played at the highest level. On a pedantic note, Bob Taylor never played in the top division (he was transferred to Wolves just after we were promoted).
  • Done - I've created a sub-article List of Gillingham F.C. players and replaced this section with a link to that, thereby eliminating the "recentist" issue
• Delink single years.
  • Done
• How big was Priestfield at its peak capacity? What is the capacity now?
  • Done
• Could be worth stating explicitly that Gillingham are Kent's only League club.
  • Done
• Check the use of although. I'm no copyediting expert, but a couple of the places where it is used don't quite look right.

Done (I think)

Hope this helps. I think the article could pass GAC already. As Mattythewhite says, FA level is a realistic target for the future. Oldelpaso 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My responses

Many thanks for your comments, I've removed the "hotly disputed" reference and the Taylor reference, I'll look at the rest tomorrow. In particular, reducing the size of the history section now that I've created a history sub-article should allow for the easy removal of sub-headings and the tightening up of the text. I'll also have a good scan through my books for more players who went on to play in the top flight.... ChrisTheDude 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

Firstly, congratulations on what you've achieved so far, excellent work. Secondly, the majority of issues that would be brought up at a featured article nomination have been mentioned above and you have already dealt with them. So, that nothwithstanding, herein follow my comments:

• You have four short paragraphs in the lead, I would consider making two or three larger paragraphs - I think the strip colour is least significant so could go at the end, but that's a matter of personal preference.
  • Done, I think
• As is always a problem with these articles, the history section suffers a bit from recentism - you have approximately half of the section discussing mid-80s onwards. It would be better to smooth it out and have less focus on the last couple of decades, if possible.
  • Done, I think
• Can you cite winning the league in 48/49 and promotion in 73/74? I would prefer the use of "...promotion in the 1973–74 season." rather than "...promotion in 1973–74."
  • Done
• Remove parentheses from "(the latter a club record)" - it makes as much sense in normal prose and looks better without them.
  • Done
• "In the 20005–01 season..."?!
  • Done, cheers Kevin! :-)
• Pulis sacking citation doesn't appear to mention gross misconduct, just that he was sacked, so I think you need a better citation or drop the gross misconduct charge.
  • Done
• Citation for Peter Taylor appointment? BBC ought to be able to do you for that.
  • Done
• "...largely disappointing..." is a bit POV, I'm sure a lot of the teams in the league weren't disappointed!
  • Done
• I lost who "Scally" was in the last sentence so perhaps reinforce his position as chairman?
  • Done, reworded the sentence
• Remove space between full-stop and ref [28] in first sentence of Stadium section.
  • Done
• Wikilink Brian Moore rather than "the deceased TV commentator" - and reword that too, definitely don't use TV - something like "television sports commentator"?
  • Done
• Use en-dash in the manager table. Consider adding their records if you can cite them?
  • Done on point 1, the records are in a linked sub-article, do you feel they need to be here too.....?
• Too many short sentences in the Stats section. Also, consider a graph of league finishes if you can generate one?
• Done the first part, not sure how to do a graph....

Hope some of that helps. Let me know if I can do anything to help out if you decide on going for FA. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kevin McE

CtD: This has been your undertaking, and I don't want to take any of that away from you, so I'll comment here on what has been said & done so far.

I'm afraid I don't think the History section has benefitted from removal of subheadings, although the thinning out and transferring a fuller history to another article I can go along with. I'm afraid it makes a very long piece of text with no visible divisions beyond paragraph breaks.

• Done - I concur, I've put them back in

I would go along with removal of the kit from the intro: it is visible in the infobox, at described farther down.

• Done

I've done the 20005 correction.

• Cheers for the assist there!

TRM's last 2 points are dealt with by the pages recently created and accessed via the Template. It's not true to say that we needed to beat Halifax to avoid relegation: there was still another set of matches to play, and even if Halifax had won that day, a Gills win at Torquay and Halifax losing their last match would have seen us survive.

• Done

One area of recentism that would be a valid criticism is mention of specific matches (although I would consider Wembley justified) and players: details of comings and goings of recent managers is also disproportionate to what went before.

• Done, I think

Great stuff though: UTG Kevin McE 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My responses to the last two editors

Cheers for the comments guys. Looking at the history section now that I've put the sub-headings back in I agree that the "modern era" looks ridiculously out of proportion, I will try and trim that tomorrow. Hopefully I've addressed pretty much all your other points..... ChrisTheDude 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]