Wikipedia:Peer review/Priestfield Stadium/archive1

Priestfield Stadium
I don't know if there's enough content for a FA, but GA's got to be worth a punt, so once again I throw myself on the tender mercies of the Peer Reviewers :-)

Thanks, ChrisTheDude 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, with GA/FA in mind, my comments.......
 * Comments de
 * Comma after first 2007.
 * where's that? the first 2007 is in the "(known since 1 June 2007....)" sentence, and I can't see why a comma would go there.....


 * Why "football (soccer)"? In deference to the "bigger" sport of American football?  Be bold.


 * Perhaps a touch of over wikilinking of Gillingham F.C. in the infobox...


 * "...current stadium, the club has..." - I'd say Gillingham F.C. instead of the club, especially as you've just talked about a "nightspot"


 * "...at an as-yet unconfirmed date." - not keen on the wording - is it needed at all?


 * "Rainham end" - was it called that or is that simply the geography of the situation? The caption for the 1908 image has it as Rainham End...
 * I have no idea (or source) when that stand was formally dubbed the Rainham End (as opposed to just "the Rainham end of the ground"). It certainly has a great big sign on it saying "The Rainham End" now, but prior to the 1990s it was most likely just an unofficial, albiet universally accepted, designation.  I've changed it to "the Rainham end of the ground" in the photo caption to make it less ambiguous


 * "In 1914 the club" - comma after 1914?


 * Same after "In 1948..." et seq.


 * Maybe need to emphasise that early days capacity was mainly standing only. Ironic that a stand was for sitting in... (just trying to help the non-expert here).


 * Just a thought, consider a plan of the stadium with stands named, I just got to "Gordon Road" side and wondered exactly where that was.
 * ✅ I think it looks rubbish, personally, but it's the best I can do with the tools available to me since my wife broke my home PC :-)


 * Is that a brown Cortina in the 1986 photo? Class.
 * Can't go wrong with a Cortina :-)


 * "...which has completely transformed..." feel nervous about the wording. Future proofing would say just "...which completely transformed...".  Perhaps the same with "...has also caused...".


 * KRBS Priestfield Stadium - bold in lead, italics in history section. Just wondered why?
 * no idea ✅


 * Yeah, definitely think a modern plan would be good for Structure and facilities section, helps visualisation.
 * ✅ see above


 * "players' accommodation" - my ignorance - what is this?
 * I think it means lounges for them to relax in after a strenuous hour or so of training (it's such a tough life) but I'm not 100% sure so I've taken it out ✅


 * Have you thought of having a fiddle with the 80s images to improve contrast? I'm guessing they're scans of old photos, just wondered what you could do with them?
 * Don't currently have access to any software that could do this, I'll see if anyone else that can help


 * " This stand is currently a temporary one..." - this stand is currently temporary?


 * Put a colon before ref 32 (the quote).


 * Surely full England Ladies is more significant than England Youth? Reorder in order.


 * I think there's room for expansion (a little bit at least) for the Brighton sharing era.
 * ✅ Added a little bit about the dispute the clubs got into and how unpopular the move was with the BHA fans....


 * This may sound cheeky but I guess you're sure that Brighton never got a bigger crowd than Gillingham there?! Just that your graph and that section concerns itself only with Gillingham.  You have a peculiar situation with the groundshare...
 * ✅ Just checked and their highest attendance at Priestfield was 6,339, so nowhere the Gills' levels....


 * I may have said this before but if you repeatedly cite a book, you could cite it fully once and then just rely on author name and page number in subsequent refs.


 * There's been some discussion over the correct use of the  field in cites, it's heading towards the standard 14 November, 2007 format rather than the 2007-11-14... You choose!
 * My brain's about to melt down and run out my ears so I think I'll leave that as it is :-)

Hope some of that helps. Let me know if I can do anything more, explain more or just pipe down! The Rambling Man 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for all your comments! ChrisTheDude 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)