Talk:1992 Football League Cup final

So, who was the starting goalkeeper for United then?

the photo said Les Sealey but the words indicated schmeichel instead?

as Sealey's profile indicated that he was on loan in 91-92 season, so it should be schmeichel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em 88 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1992 Football League Cup final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review the article over the course of the day, I'll probably make several revisions to this page before complete but I will send you a message once complete. Thanks for your work on the article so far, it looks in good shape. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• This will need reworked. The result of the match is one of the most important things about this article, yet it's the last thing you mention. You should state somewhere in the opening paragraph that Man U defeated Nottingham Forest. I think the easiest way to do this would be to move the Both teams progressed... sentence to the second paragraph and add another sentence to the opening paragraph with he result.
  • Just wedged it in briefly without reworking the paragraphs, let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Add a short description to the top of the article. WP:SDNONE may be applicable.
  • Not a GA requirement, but added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Are we able to add sponsorship details? I see the 1991–92 Football League Cup article states that the competition was sponsored by Rumbelows so it might be worth adding – known as the Rumbelows Cup for sponsorship reasons –
  • Added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Background

• Brief but well written. Could potentially add sponsorship details here.
  • Added sponsorship details. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Route to the final

• Is it worth explaining the format here? I honestly wasn't expecting the two-leg, one-leg, two-leg thing so it might be worth a paragraph outlining the tournament structure.
  • Added a paragraph at the start of the section, let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• they won the tie 4–1 after a late goal from Cambridge United. - Could we name the Cambridge player or is it unknown?
  • I've tried to avoid naming any of the scorers for the 'other' teams. It should just have Manchester United and Nottingham Forest scorers, I think? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• I like the tables that show each team's route to the final but I think a couple of things need to be explained for people who don't know about football. For (h), (a) and AET, it would be useful to have a key so that readers unfamiliar with the subject can see at a glance what they mean.
  • AET is wikilinked, and I'm wary about adding too much weight to these tables. The detail should all be provided in the prose. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-match

• League Cup Final - Lower case F
  • Fixed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Match

• Can we add a sentence at the end to say that the match finished 1–0? I know we already know that but it reads like something has been omitted when it just abruptly ends. Something like Despite Forest's efforts, they couldn't equalise and Manchester United won 1–0.
  • Added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

Needs an aftermath section. Things like the reaction to the result, what it meant for United and Forest's seasons, when would be the next time either of these sides were in the final again?

Added some further information. Let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A couple of minor things to tidy up.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Spot check on 1, 9, 16, 24, 30.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources are local or national newspapers, all relibale. Quotes properly attributed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Only thing missing is an aftermath section outlining the reaction to the match.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images tagged with appropriate licences
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are of the stadium, players involved and players who missed the match. Only caption note would be that the Pearce picture (unlike the McClair picture) doesn't say that it is recent and not contemporaneous whereas the Robson photo next to it is.
	7. Overall assessment.

I feel like this article is GA worthy even before I've properly reviewed it. This is genuinely one of the best I've seen. Thanks for all your work on this. A few tweaks and we'll be good to go. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: Hey, hope you are well. Just wondered if you had a chance to read through my comments. You're very close to a GA here, would be a shame for it to miss out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I'm pretty busy IRL at the moment, but will see what I can do. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, happy to leave it open till the end of the month to give you a bit time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Made some changes and additions based on your feedback above, let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks for your all work on this. I've made a couple of minor changes where Premier League was missed out and a random 0 occurred in the Manchester United route to the final table so it's good to go. I did also remove the flagicons from the match details section, I know that didn't affect the GA process but it was a minor change I could make to meet the MOS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)