Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final/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) 9 May 2021 [1].

---

2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, it's been a long long time since I nominated an article for FAC (FLC has been my main hang-out for many years), but after seeing the excellent work done by The Rambling Man with 1987 FA Cup Final, I decided to finally expand this article (which I got to GA in 2008 - heavens, was it really that long ago?) to a (hopefully) FA-worthy state. I have tried to write in a way which non-experts will be able to understand/follow (the use of some footballing terms is by definition unavoidable but hopefully I have kept it simple and avoided real jargon, but the odd bit might have slipped through, so feel free to pull me up on that). All comments will be most welcome and promptly acted upon. Disclaimer: I am a Gillingham fan and was at this game cheering them to victory, but I am confident that everything in the article is handled in a NPOV manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Per WP:NFCC, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I do not see how omitting the promotional poster would be detrimental to the understanding of the article.
• Other image licensing is OK. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - replaced with a free image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• "was a football match", I think it's generally preferred to got for "an association football match" to avoid ambiguity for our readers over the pond.
• "1999–2000 season", I'd probably extend the link to season as well to make it crystal clear.
• Should "the" be capitalised in "The Football League" when used mid-sentence like this?
• Might be worth noting how the team's fared in the following season at the end of the lead, similar in fashion to TRM's articles
• "them thanks to their 2–1 win", thanks sounds a little informal, perhaps replace with following or something similar?
• "scored a goal for Gillingham", a goal is probably redundant here.
• "previous season's Second Division play-off Final", worth linking to the article?
• "with Darren Sheridan dominating", Sheridan has already been mentioned by this point so no need to use his first name again. Same with Iffy Onoura slightly further on.
• Link crossed to Cross (association football).
• "Simon Haworth flicked it up", no need for the first name again. Sheridan, Barlow and Ashby also have the same issue in the extra time section. Ty Gooden is also linked for a second time here too.
• Defender is linked in the extra time section, by is used a few times before this. Move the link to the first usage.
• What order are the substitutes listed in the details section? There doesn't seem any obvious ordering (number, position, alphabetical, etc?)
• A few first name repeats in the post-mact section, Benson, Taylor, Hessenthaler.
• "2002–03 season" include season in the link to match the rest of the article.
• "penultimate game to take place" > to be played perhaps. The following sentence uses the take place wording again which is a little repetitive.

Hi Chris, nice to see you at FAC. This is a few points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kosack: - all done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Kosack:, I was wondering if you were feeling able to support or oppose this nomination yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry I've been a bit limited for time recently and this slipped off my radar. Yes I'm happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon

Hi Chris, quite impressive to see you have been contributing to WP since at least 2008. I am happy to review, but I'm afraid it will be in stages and not all at once. From a quick first reading I expect very little to be able to contribute, as I find the text well-written and a pleasure to read.

• previous(ly) is used 3 times in short succession in opening paragraph
• at the higher level; after losing --> I'm not a fan of semicolons, and it's your call of course, but using the semicolon here made me think the 2nd bit was also going to be about Gillingham.
• Even He can’t put consistency into the referees". --> full sentence so I think it is ."
• BBC --> link. I just realised I tend to use BBC Sport but for no conscious reason. Must have copied from someone else.
• The odds on both teams were considered to be equal, at 5–6 --> as given by whom?
• was Andy Hessenthaler's six-year-old son --> is the use of Andy here deliberate or just an oversight? And same question for Derek Stillie in next paragraph

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: all done. Oh, and BTW I have actually been contributing to WP since 2005. I feel old now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As a WP reader I say thank you for 16 years of contributions!

But enough with the niceties, on with the show :)

• Shortly afterwards, Wigan were awarded --> awarded used twice on same line
• with the commentary team stating that --> perhaps add Sky: the Sky commentary team
• first corner kick of the game, but Wigan goalkeeper Stillie was able to catch --> not so sure about that "but". There is quite a bit implied here. Perhaps something along the lines of "but nothing came to it as Wigan goalkeeper..."
• Four minutes before the end of the game --> the end of regular time you mean
• "You feel cheated, but decisions like that are part of the game". --> ."
• in a celebratory open-top bus parade. --> would it be nice to add perhaps where this took place?
  • From non-reliable sources I know that it was definitely in Gillingham (as one might expect), but the only reliable source I could find which mentions it (the one in the article) just refers to "the town". Do you think it's too much of a stretch to specifically state Gillingham in the article with that as the ref........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The context in the source is clear. Fine to say Gillingham in article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• before it was mostly demolished and a new stadium of the same name built in its place --> shouldn't there be a "was" before built?
  • No, I think it's OK as it is. It's like saying "The man was chucked out of the pub and told not to come back" - that reads more naturally than "The man was chucked out of the pub and was told not to come back" (IMO at least) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No idea what made that the first example to come to mind, BTW :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Amusing example. Thanks for explaining to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• never written those players off, never". --> ."
• is there anything to be said about the financial aspects of winning or losing this match? These days it has a big impact, going up or not, but was it like that 20 years ago?
  • I can't find any sources that talk about that. There's a lot of talk about the financial impact of going up from what is now the Championship to the Premier League, but I don't recall ever seeing much talk about the impact of going up from League One to the Championship...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it was just an idea. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As I suspected, I could not make any significant contributions, just nitpicking. Nice work. Once I have time I will look at the sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mostly amended - a few comments for you above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, all fine. This weekend I will do a source review. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review:

• Linking inconsistencies: the Independent is linked 2 out of 3 times. The Times and BBC Sport seem never linked. I believe there is no rule other than being consistent. I prefer to link every instance, but that's just me.
• The locations of the publisher of the books are missing.

Spot check:

• #1 all fine
• #2 doesn't seem to cover this bit "one position ahead of Wigan Athletic" (I guess you can just add #1)
  • Done
• #4 all fine except for the generic rules bit "with one game at each team's home stadium and the result determined based on the aggregate score of the two games". I assume that is covered by #5, which I can't access
  • Another ref added for good measure
• #6 doesn't seem to cover these bits "Four days after the first leg matches took place, Wigan defeated Millwall 1–0" and " midfielder Darren Sheridan scored the only goal of the game in the second half" but #7 does, so I guess it's just a matter of moving #6 to the end of the sentence.
  • Done
• #7 Fine. Oddly enough the BBC does not mention that the game went to extra time. So I guess you had to add #8, which I can't access
  • Yes, that ref does mention it, but I added another one for good measure
• #9 ok
• #65 ok
• #40 I couldn't see the following bit exactly word for word: "These players, especially the ones that were here last year, deserved it. All season they've shown unbelievable character, and that's what they have done today. They never know when they are beaten"
  • Fixed - I forgot to copy a ref from elsewhere in the article
• #47 ok
• #66 ok
• #67 ok
• #68 ok
• #21 ok
• #69 ok
• #70 is a dead link
  • Assuming you refer to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30642796 (that was #70 at the point you commented but is now #72, it works fine for me??

Yes that is the one. It works fine for me now too. Odd. Just noticed though that the dates are not right.

• #39 ok
• #72 ok
• #73 ok
• #74 ok
• #54 ok
• #55 the timing is off here. I would say around 02:34:40
  • Done
• #56 ok
• #58 ok
• #59 ok
• #60 ok

That's it. I'll watch some more of that game on YouTube now. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Responses above to the second section. My tea is ready now so I will look at the first section later or tomorrow :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Book locations added, all publishers/works linked, fixed my own dumb typo in the dates of that ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice work. To the best of my knowledge this article now meets all criteria for FA, so Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - thanks for your support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Edwininlondon, just checking for clarity: That is a pass for a source review, a spot check and a general review, yes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for not being clear. Yes, it is pass for source review, spot check and prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support this is a great article and is thorough, detailed, easy to read (and easy to understand). I made a few superficial alterations (such as adding some more wikilinks, a few MOS issues, some source format consistencies etc) but nothing substantial. Glad to support this as one of Wikipedia's finest articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

Consider this a mostly non-expert review.

• "The final drew a crowd of just under 54,000 and was refereed by Rob Styles." You have the exact number in the infobox, why not put the exact number here?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "The teams finishing between third and sixth inclusive would compete" Delete would
  • It's consistent with the sentence before, should I change that too? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • On a second look, I think I figured out my concern: The first two sentences of the paragraph used present tense (the teams finishing) However, the article is talking about a league season that happened in the past, and the remaining sentence use past-tense. I think it would be beneficial to change the first two sentences to past tense. (the teams that finished, gained automatic promotion, etc.) Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "team's form fell away dramatically after Christmas." I don't know if it's because I'm Canadian, but this feels like slang. Perhaps "the team struggled to earn enough points to be automatically relegated."
  • Done, albeit differently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • What about "the team struggled after Christmas" The change to "much less well" feels awkward to me. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "but been defeated by Manchester City." but were defeated by
  • Done, albeit differently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Wigan had also competed" Delete also
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "on both teams as equal, at 5–6" I don't know much about odds, but doesn't 5-6 mean one team has an advantage?
  • No idea, just quoting the source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • After an internet search and consulting the source, I think the 5-6 means that out of 11 matches, the team would win 5 times while they would lose 6. However, the result cannot end in a tie (a shootout would decide the winner if the game ended in a tie) so, out of 11 games it would be impossible for both teams to have the same number of wins. Since the source lists both teams as 5-6 (instead of one team listed as 5-6 and the other as 6-5) I think that the claim that the odds are even is verified. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "The play-off final drew" Replace with "The match drew" to reduce the number of words?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Approximately 90 minutes before the game a hailstorm had occurred," Rephrase: "A hailstorm occurred approximately 90 minutes before the game"
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "but by 3.00 pm the sky was clear" This should be 3:00pm per MOS:TIME
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "the ball had been in the third of the pitch closest to the goal being defended by Gillingham for almost twice as much time as in the third closest to the other goal." This is very convaluted. Perhaps "the ball was in the third of the pitch closest to Gillingham's goalkeeper for almost twice as much time as in the third closest to Wigan's goalkeeper." or something similar.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "close to the Wigan penalty area, and as Gooden's kick came in," Replace the comma between "area" and "and" to break up the run-on sentence.
  • Replace it with what? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "but on this occasion the kick did not trouble" delete on this occassion
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "wished to get back into the game." This sounds like jargon. Please rephrase.
  • Just deleted it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "cautioned for dissent" What does this mean?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "and therefore went into extra time." Delete therefore
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "After the final whistle" Replace with "After the match" to remove jargon.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "The club finally gained promotion to the second tier" Delete finally
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: See responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Some comments above. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Z1720: changes made -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • My concerns have been addressed. I support this FA based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• 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) 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.