Talk:1987 Football League Third Division play-off final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 03:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

About time this gets a review. Although I have some experience in Wikipedia articles on football, they tend to be the Australian variety, so you may need to bear with me at times :) – Teratix ₵ 03:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Teratix: - looking forward to your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• The fact this was one of the inaugural play-off finals seems significant enough to be mentioned in the lead.  Done
• 22 May 1987 and 25 May 1987 – why not just "22 and 25 May 1987"?  Done
• finished in 21st place in the division above – table says 20th, not 21st. Also, "finished Xth" is more concise than "finished in Xth place" and avoids repeating "in".  Done
• to give Swindon the 2–1 victory in the match – I would generally write "a 2–1 victory", especially since there's a need to distinguish between victory in the play-off and victory in a leg.  Done
• The following season, Swindon Town finished in 12th position in the Second Division while Gillingham finished the following season in the Third Division – don't need "the following season" twice  Done
• The way the concept of relegation places is treated throughout the article is a bit confusing. There's an initial reference to the club which had finished immediately above the relegation places taking part in the play-offs, implying Sunderland would not be considered to have finished in the relegation places, but the club is included in the "relegation places" table and is mentioned as having dropped into the relegation zone on the final day. I believe I understand what the article is attempting to convey (21st and 22nd are automatically relegated, but 20th is only potentially relegated depending on the outcome of the play-offs), but it could be phrased in a clearer fashion.  Done
• The play-offs were not universally lauded – it's a bit odd to mention something wasn't "universally" lauded, since the article doesn't discuss any examples of the system being lauded at all, even though the sources it's based on do. Might be worth briefly discussing pro-play-off perspectives for balance.  Done
  • I'm struggling to find anyone who thought the introduction of the play-offs was a good thing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The 1987 article in The Guardian mentions "League spokesman Andy Williamson" who gives a few points in their favour. Even the byline dubs them a "League success". It just strikes me that the impression of the play-offs I received after reading this section was a bit more negative than I received from reading its sources. – Teratix ₵ 02:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)  Done
• seven points behind Middlesbrough (who were automatically promoted in second position) and ten behind Bournemouth (who were promoted as champions). → "seven points behind Middlesbrough and ten behind Bournemouth, who were both promoted automatically."  Done
• Christmas 1986 – "end of December 1986" seems more appropriate wording for an international audience, unless Christmas has a special significance in this context?
  • They weren't in the top two at the end of the year. I wanted to stress that they had been in the top 2 reasonably close to the halfway point of the season and just before the Christmas break was the closest..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, I see what you mean. – Teratix ₵ 02:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Wigan's goalkeeper Roy Tunks dived at the feet of Jimmy Quinn to deny a goalscoring chance but the ball fell to Dave Bamber who scored. – seems like this sentence could use a couple of commas.  Done
• record total of 102 points club record? division record? league record?  Done
• was thus now aiming → "was aiming"  Done
• Why is the match's precise kick-off time only known for the first leg?  Done
• substituted after being on the receiving end of a strong tackle → "after receiving a strong tackle"  Done
• goal-less until the 81st minute perhaps "goalless"?  Done
• Gillingham manager Peacock picked Steve Lovell in place of goalscorer Smith – seems like an unusual move to drop a successful player, any information available on Peacock's reasoning?
  • Not that I could find. Smith was not a regular starter and I suspect he was dropped because Lovell became available again after injury or similar, but that's OR..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • OK. – Teratix ₵ 02:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• substitute's bench – use of the possessive seems strange here, surely "substitutes bench" or "substitutes' bench"  Done
• If the rules governing the play-off final had been the same as the semi-final, Gillingham would have won on away goals, but the rules differed between the semi-final and the final; – lengthy and unwieldy, drop either the first or third clause  Done
• a new record for the highest number of games → "the most games"  Done
• both of the previous games → "both previous games"  Done
• King free-kick → "King free kick"  Done
• Macari was sympathetic to his opposition in the manner of their failure to gain promotion – seems a bit clunky but not quite sure how I'd reword it  Done
  • Hmm, the rewording eliminated the implication he was sympathetic to Gillingham specifically because of the play-off structure (not just ordinary sympathy for beaten opponents). Seems like something that should be retained. – Teratix ₵ 02:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)  Done
• speculation surrounded Macari's position at Swindon following two consecutive promotions – bit of a teaser, who made these speculations? Were they justified? What clubs was he linked to?  Done
  • I've reworded it because the source doesn't name specific clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Although two consecutive promotions, reporters were keen to ask Macari if he would be leaving his job to take over at a more high-profile club, but he was focused on the play-off victory – first clause doesn't make sense and the middle clause could be made more concise. – Teratix ₵ 02:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)  Done
• The following season, Swindon Town finished in 12th position in the Second Division. Gillingham began the following season mounting another challenge for promotion ... again "the following season" is not necessary twice in close succession  Done
• What makes Tracking the Hooligans: The History of Football Violence on the UK Rail Network reliable? All other references seem alright, offline and paywalled accepted in good faith.
  • It's a book published by a mainstream publisher with an extensive catalogue. I can't see any reason to think it's not reliable.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I just ask because Leyton seems to have quite an emotive and exaggerated writing style – his other titles include "Hunting the Hooligans", "Police Dog Heroes", "Birmingham's Front Line" etc. I suppose this is more of an issue of potential bias, rather than reliability, and it's not as if his book is extensively used throughout the article, so I'm happy to let it go, but just something to think about if pushing for FA. (You could link Amberley Publishing in the citation). – Teratix ₵ 02:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Harder to assess the plagiarism criterion with offline references, but of the sources available only direct quotes seem to be copied, which are suitably concise.
• Obviously stable and an overall well-balanced article, especially considering the co-nominator's allegiances...
• Images are decent quality, well-captioned and freely licensed, but c:File:Don Rogers Stand 2014-05-03 14-42.jpg (County Ground) has an odd red tint; wouldn't c:File:Kingswoodstand.JPG or c:File:Swindon Town July 07.jpg be worth considering instead? Similarly, what about c:File:London - Selhurst Park (stadium of Crystal Palace FC) - Main Stand - panoramio.jpg or c:File:Selhurst Park Holmesdale Stand.jpg for Selhurst Park?  Done
• I should disclose this review is part of the July GA backlog drive.

I'll put this on hold for now. An entertaining read with only minor issues that should be easily addressed. – Teratix ₵ 13:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Teratix: - all addressed, let me know what you think....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Teratix: - some more fixes made :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm pleased to pass this article as a GA. – Teratix ₵ 02:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)