Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 Football League Third Division play-off Final/archive1

1987 Football League Third Division play-off Final

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Back in the mid-1980s, English football was at a low ebb: poor crowds, hooliganism etc. Part of the solution was this new-fangled thing called the English Football League play-offs which was essentially a postseason tournament for clubs who just missed out on promotion and relegation. It was intended as a stop-gap method of balancing teams in the leagues, but more than 30 years later, we're still loving/hating/loving/hating it. This particular article covers the play-off final for the third tier of English football in that inaugural season of the play-offs, which was met with varied support. Obviously, anyone who has won the play-offs loves it, and some of us who have lost in half a dozen, don't love it so much. This FAC was brought to you as a co-nomination by me (an independent Tractor Boy) and (a Gill), and both of us will work as hard as is required to cover any and all constructive concerns raised. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...),. 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack
A few very minor points from a run through. This article seems in great shape really and I can find little to complain about. Kosack (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Link replay in the lead.
 * "Howard Pritchard scored for Gillingham, but Eric Gates then scored twice for Sunderland. In the second half, Cascarino scored to make the score", slightly repetitive here with the use of score maybe? Could do with some variation.
 * "after 15 minutes after", change the second use of after to when perhaps?
 * "Kite made two saves", first mention of Kite so needs the full name and link.
 * In the second leg, Kite is linked but is mentioned previously as above.
 * One of the books in the bibliography section has a location, the other two don't. Best to try and stay consistent.
 * - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to support, great quality stuff as usual. Kosack (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Amakuru

 * Route to the final
 * "This was the inaugural season of the Football League play-offs" - It seems a bit odd to start the article's body with "this", when we haven't been talking about anything yet. Maybe switch to "The 1986–87 season" or similar. You could even include a link at that point.
 * "for a place in the second tier of English football for the following season" - given that we've just been talking about the "Second Division" and "Third Division", it is slightly confusing to now use a different piece of terminology for the Second Division. Suggest saying Second Division here, and including the nugget about the tiers of the FL system somewhere else.
 * Link away goals rule in first paragraph, rather than in the third
 * "Sunderland had finished the 1986–87 season in 20th place" - optional, but I think just "finished" might work better than "had finished" here. It's all in the past anyway, and all part of the "route to the final". Up to you.
 * Ditto for Swindon Town
 * nine defeats in 20 games - 9/20 or nine/twenty
 * "nine points behind Swindon Town and 16 points outside..." - ditto
 * "After just four minutes Howard Pritchard scored for Gillingham" - you can either have a comma here after "minutes" or not, but it needs to be consistent. The next sentence starts "In the second half, a goal from Cascarino" and further down I see "In the other semi-final, Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic", which do have commas after the introductory clause. Either remove all or add all.
 * "In the other semi-final, Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic and the first leg was held at Springfield Park" - talking of commas, there isn't one before the "and" in this sentence, while similar sentences above (e.g. "... a penalty kick to give Sunderland a 1–0 lead at half-time, but in the second half Tony Cascarino ...") do have commas in that position.
 * "into the Swindon net" - slightly journalese terminology perhaps?
 * "Ending in a 0–0 draw, Swindon progressed to the final..." - it's more likely the match that ended in a 0–0 draw, rather than Swindon Town, who are still in existence to this day.


 * Done as far as here. Need to log off now -, if you are about at the moment, might you be able to look at the below?  If not, I'll pick it up tomorrow...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Background
 * The first sentence seems like a bit of a repeat of information we've already been given above, and is also slightly inaccurate, as if Sunderland had won the play-offs then there wouldn't have been a "third and final team to be promoted". Would it be possible to move all the Background to a new section above "Route to the final"? This would match the layout we've been adopting more recently at articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 Final.
 * I think it's reasonable to suggest that some of this has already been covered, and there doesn't seem much mileage in keeping the non-duplicated stuff here? I think most match background stuff was usually limited to team choices and referees and any other stuff, like police issues, ground issues, fan issues etc.  What do you think?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved the Background section up and rejigged things a bit to make the flow make more sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * On that note, there are details often included in a "pre-match" section which are not present here, for example team news, the mood in the camps before the games, the choice of referee and so on.
 * As you know, the first play-offs in 1987 were met with an almost anonymous feeling. They were not covered in any way at all outside the UK, and unless you can find any source (including the paper one that I have) which contains information that we're missing, I'm not sure how to action this comment.  Or is this another "there must be something more out there, surely?" kind of thing?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Team news is already covered (eg "Chris Kamara was an injury doubt for Swindon while Gillingham's Steve Lovell, Joe Hinnigan, Mark Weatherly and Irvin Gernon were all out" for the first leg). I can't imagine any media source would have devoted space to discussing the choice of referee for a Third Division match.  I've added a couple of snippets from the build-up to the first leg, couldn't find anything equivalent for the other two games...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah... sorry I hadn't looked at the match summary yet, the first paragraph there is basically the pre-match. Although this would tend to suggest that the match summary is lacking some information which it could have. I'll defer a decision on this one for now, I might be able to help you with a bit more info from local papers. Otherwise I guess it's as good as it can be. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

More to come! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - all points thus far addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I managed to make a trip to the British Library today, and I've located some material regarding the games from the Swindon Evening Advertiser and also the Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham News. It has a little bit of extra detail on the matches themselves, as well as some previews and reactions. Annoyingly I failed to find a match report for the first of the three games, but the Advertiser has them for the other two. To avoid publishing copyrighted material, I'll email you links as to where you can view those articles. Then hopefully we can move on with this review! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - that's amazing, thanks so much! I have incorporated information from your sources into the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - BTW, well done on proving me comprehensively wrong that the press wouldn't bother writing about the choice of ref for a Third Division match ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! It seems they got in a right old tizz about it as well, for no particular reason other than that he sent one of their players off in an earlier game. Thanks for the updates. BTW I think there are some facts from the Clive King match reports which could be added to the match summaries. For example, Kamara had a limping upper-thigh injury in the first half of the second leg, and was replaced by Henry at half time. And there's more information on the Swindon equaliser. And then Gillingham had a period of pressure with David Smith looking dangerous (if that can be summarised in a neutral fashion). There isn't a massive amount there that's relevant and not already covered, but since the match summary is quite short already it would be worth including any information we have. I'm still irritated with myself for possibly missing the Saturday paper's report of the first leg, it was the end of the day yesterday and I think it possibly zoomed past me on the microfiche reader! If I have time I'll look again next week. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - I worked those snippets in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Following those additions, I'm here to finish off my review, below. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Match
 * "Swindon Advertiser" - I think it was known as the "Swindon Evening Advertiser" at the time.
 * "Before the match trouble flared between rival groups" - per the above point, there should be a comma after "match" I believe
 * "struck the Gillingham crossbar, but just after the hour mark, Swindon equalised: Henry controlled a pass..." - wondering if the comma should be after "but" instead of before it? Also, I think maybe a full stop would work better than a colon after "equalised", and just describe the goal in a separate sentence?
 * "although just before half-time, Elsey played a one-two with Quow, but his shot went outside the far post" - it sounds slightly odd to have "although" and "but" in the same sentence; perhaps "whose shot went outside the far post" instead?
 * ''"whose" wouldn't work there, because the shot was Elsey's, not Quow's..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-match
 * "After he led the team to two consecutive promotions" - I fought at first (having forgotten the detail on the previous promotion from the Background) that this might be referring to another promotion the following season. See if it can be reworded to make it clear that this was the second of the two.
 * "They would finally reach" - simpler just to say "They finally reached" I think.


 * Lead
 * "contested by Gillingham and Swindon Town over two legs on 22 and 25 May 1987" - I know we haven't mentioned the result of the two legs yet, but rather than maintain the suspense I feel like it would be good to mention the replay and its date at this point as well, since it is covered by this article too.
 * "in their semi-final by away goals" - isn't "on away goals" more common phrasing?
 * "a spot in the Second Division" - slightly colloquial language. Maybe just "a place in the Second Division"?

That's it! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - all done with one tiny exception, as above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks! Happy to support. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Edwininlondon
Another fine episode in the FA play-offs series. Not too much to comment on. Just a few minor things: More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the mixture of Swindon Town and Swindon a bit jarring. I'd prefer to either use Swindon Town consistently or start with Swindon Town and then shorten it to Swindon (first in the lead and then do the same in the body of the article).
 * Gillingham and Swindon were competing --> both should be linked (and subsequent uses delinked)
 * after which Lou Macari was appointed --> after which Macari was appointed
 * Swindon had won 3–1 at Priestfield Stadium in December --> link Priestfield Stadium and say whose stadium this is
 * and the match at the County Ground in May --> link County Ground (and delink subsequent use) and say whose stadium this is
 * Swindon Town finished in third place --> this looks fine to me but we have a 4th place a few lines back, so some consistency would be good, one way or another
 * 3–2 to the "Gills" --> I'm not so keen on using this nickname, doesn't feel very encyclopedia-like
 * Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic --> link Wigan Athletic
 * With two minutes remaining, Mark Jones crossed from the right and Peter Coyne scored with a header, making the final score 3–2. --> it is not clear which team these players are on and thus who won
 * - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We will have our hands full". --> We will have our hands full." -- done
 * His opposite number --> doesn't sound very encyclopedia-like -- done
 * before Quinn headed over --> I thought he was substituted off -- done
 * Both teams made one change for the second leg. --> I would add how many days later this match was. -- done
 * Quinn, who had been substituted in the first leg --> that was already mentioned before, so this redundant -- done
 * Replay summary: I would add how many days later this match was. And a bit about which neutral stadium. Anything known why they chose Croydon? -- can't find any evidence that a specific reason was announced for the choice of Selhurst Park. It would have been geographically convenient for the two teams, but that's as much as I can say
 * the FA Cup Final at Wembley". --> the FA Cup Final at Wembley." Plus link Wembley. -- done
 * he felt "as low as I have ever felt in football" --> not sure if this correct in English. It wouldn't be in Dutch. I mean, starting with third person and then continuing in the quote with first person. But maybe fine in English. -- yes, I think it's OK
 * The following season, Swindon Town finished --> The following season, Swindon finished -- those look identical to me??
 * The "Gills" finished -->  Gillingham finished .. And then replace  Gillingham with They in the next sentence -- done
 * Is there anything about the fans reactions? I recall from one of your earlier FACs that Gillingham did a victory parade in town when they won a promotion. Nothing happening in Swindon? can't find anything., anything in any of your sources?
 * responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * has Chris addressed your concerns? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, all fine. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
Looks good to me (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass
References
 * #6 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #7 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp " parameter
 * Added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #11 — How did you access this source?
 * It was accessed in person at the British Library (on microfiche). I can send you a photo of it if necessary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #12 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #18 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #19 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #20 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #21 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #23 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #25 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #26 — Publisher location missing. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * Location added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #17 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #30 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #34 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #35 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #36 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #40 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * #41 — How did you access this source?
 * At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography
 * Mattick 2004 — Publisher location missing.
 * Added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - all addressed above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside, retrieval dates are no harm at all if the printed matter has been accessed online. And I'm unaware of any requirements to demonstrate how sources were accessed?  But thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All looks good., I didn't say it was a requirement to remove the retrieval dates; they may be unnecessary (it's like saying when you went to a library to look at a book), but neither is it necessary to not have them. And I, too, am unaware of any requirement to demonstrate how a source was accessed—I was merely asking because if accessed online, it would be helpful to add a link. As a general matter, however, I don't see a harm in having a source review cover both requirement and suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

as this has the customary support/image/source reviews to enable another co-nomination, can I go ahead and do that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * any update on this request? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720
Reviewing this to reduce the FAC backlog. I appreciate that this nominator has been reviewing lots of other FACs, helping to get them promoted. Non-expert prose review.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping after they are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "This was followed, however, by two goals from" Not sure if however is necessary here. Consider deleting it.
 * I think it is necessary, personally, because it highlights that Gillingham went 2-0 up and seemed to be in a commanding position but it then swung dramatically the other way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikilink Heathrow Agreement and delete the quotes?
 * Quotes deleted, but there is no article on it to link to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FAs can have redlinks. The question to consider is: Can Heathrow Agreement get its own article one day because it is notable enough to have one? Considering that this agreement led to significant changes to the league structure, I suspect that there has been notable coverage of this topic to warrant an article. However, it is ultimately the nominator's decision as I am not an expert in this topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Although the play-offs raised an extra £1 million in revenue in their first year, half of which would be shared by all member clubs, and a spokesman for the Football League dubbed them "a phenomenal success", they were criticised by some in the game." I think this sentence should be broken up for flow. Perhaps, "The play-offs raised an extra £1 million in revenue in their first year, half of which would be shared by all member clubs, and a spokesman for the Football League dubbed them "a phenomenal success". However, they were criticised by some in the game."
 * Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "As a result Gillingham ended " Comma after result?
 * Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph in Post-match gives one sentence to Swindon's subsequent season and three to Gillingham's. Is there more information that can be given about Swindon's season? Maybe what their expectations were going into the Second Division or significant changes to the team/personnel staff?
 * Searched various sources, including contemporary books and newspapers, and couldn't find anything about either of the points you suggest (they seem to have signed only one new player before the subsequent season), but have added a second sentence to make the section a bit more balanced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Several book sources are listed in Bibliography, but Ref 10, "The Definitive Gillingham F.C.: A Complete Record" is not. Consider moving it down to keep similar media together, and thus keeping a consistent reference style.
 * Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:BIB, bibliography is discouraged as a section heading. Consider changing it to "Works Cited" or something similar.
 * Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - see responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment above re: Heathrow Agreement Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't believe the Heathrow Agreement merits a standalone article., as co-nom would you concur? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an indication, I'm struggling to find any source that even says what all the ten points were. All I've found so far is endless variations on "the play-offs were introduced following the Heathrow Agreement"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until TRM weighs in. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the Heathrow Agreement isn't notable in itself, and the play-offs formed only a minor part of it. There's going to be more on it once I finish the English Football League play-offs article improvements I'm working on, but it doesn't merit a link in my opinion.  It would also be covered (or should be) in the history section of English Football League.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my last concern; everything I flagged has been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)