Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1873–74 Scottish Cup/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2023 [1].

---

1873–74 Scottish Cup

Nominator(s): Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the inaugural Scottish Cup competition organised by the Scottish Football Association in 1873–74. The competition involved the eight founder members of the SFA as well as an additional eight clubs and was won by Queen's Park – their first of 10 titles to date. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the competition so I would like to promote the article to FA status. This is my first nomination so any assistance is greatly appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Stevie fae Scotland, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Queen's Park had been founded in July 1867 and joined the English Football Association three years later" - I don't think it's strictly accurate to call the FA "English" in this time period. As noted further on, the Scottish FA had not yet been formed, and it was still rather nebulous as to whether the FA was the governing body of association football in England, all of the UK, or even the whole world. Maybe hedge bets and, if they were the first Scottish member club (as I believe they were), say "and became the first Scottish club to join the previously solely England-based Football Association three years later."
• "the costs of travelling to England for matches was" - "the costs....was" isn't grammatically correct
• "Secretary Archibald Rae also" - false title. Suggest "The club's secretary Archibald Rae also"
• "wrote a letter to a number of clubs, including Kilmarnock who had taken influence from Queen's Park to play association football over rugby, " - comma usage makes it ambiguous as to whether it was just Kilmarnock who had taken influence or all the clubs he wrote to

  Used endash to separate, it was just Kilmarnock so hopefully that clears it up. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Eight further teams joined the Scottish FA over the next few months and subscription fees from 15 of them" - this wording indicates that the 15 was a sub-set of the 8, which obviously isn't possible. Suggest "Eight further teams joined the Scottish FA over the next few months and subscription fees from 15 of the members"
• "Players were considered "out of play" if they were nearer to the goal than their teammate when they kicked the ball unless there were at least three of their opponents between them and their own goal." - this wording is very confusing. I would suggest "A player was considered "out of play" if he was nearer to the goal than a teammate who kicked the ball to him, unless there were at least three opponents between him and the goal." No need to use gender-neutral language, I would say, given that only men took part in the competition.
• I have seen the term "gutta percha" before now in this context and I have absolutely no idea what it is/was. Do you happen to know? Is there an appropriate wikilink?

  Honestly, I didn't know what this was either. Gutta-percha was used to reinforce football boots, more information is available here if you're interested. I have wiki-linked as there is a page explaining what it is but it has no mention of it being used to reinforce football boots. If I get a chance today, I'll add something so it's not just linking to a page that might be confusing for readers. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Of the 16 teams to enter the first round; Southern were" - semi-colon should be a comma
• "Southern were the only team who would not play a single match" - presumably you mean they would never play a Scottish Cup match? Rather than literally never play a match?
• "Five of the eight ties were played at venues opposite to the draw after Renton, Eastern, Queen's Park, Western and Clydesdale won the coin toss" - I don't get this. Earlier you simply said that home advantage was determined by a coin toss. But now it reads like it was determined by the draw but then could get changed by a coin toss?

  What I meant by this was that team X was drawn out the hat first to play team Y before the coin toss decided team Y would host. I'm not sure what the best way to say that is because I understand the confusion. It is noted in the source (the online version has the same notation but doesn't actually say what it means) that Ties whose first match was played on a venue opposite to the draw are donated with a v* versus and prior to 1880 the choice of ground for the first match in a tie was decided by the toss of a coin. I've left it in for now but I'm happy to discuss the wording or perhaps remove the opposite to the draw phrasing and just say who won the coin toss in each tie. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  If home advantage was solely determined by a coin toss then which team came out of the hat first doesn't really matter, so I just wouldn't mention it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  No worries Chris, thanks. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Stevie fae Scotland please have a look at the instructions at the top of FAC; the {{tq}} template is not used at FAC, as it causes problems in archives and slows down the load time for all of FAC. I have replaced a few so the FAC page can again become accessible to all. Thanks for understanding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Later on the same day, Alexandra Athletic and Eastern recorded wins over Callander and Rovers" => "Later on the same day, Alexandra Athletic and Eastern recorded wins over Callander and Rovers respectively"
• Hampden Park is linked twice
• As is Crosshill
• As is Eastern
• Note a does not need a full stop
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks, much appreciated. I've got most of them and replied directly underneath to a couple that might be worth double checking. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "officially the Scottish Football Association Challenge Cup": can I just check that this was the official name right from the start? I know it's the official name now, but since this is the article about the first cup, this is going to be taken as indicating the name at the time. If we don't know for sure I would hedge with wording such as "now officially known as".

Double checked this, according to the Glasgow Herald of 10 October 1873 (page 5), it was officially the Scottish Football Association Challenge Cup. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• "It is the oldest in association football and the oldest national trophy in the world." Perhaps a footnote would be useful here to explain that the UK consists of four nations in the football world, unlike any other country (and almost any other sport) -- many non-Brits would be baffled by calling the Scottish Cup a national trophy.

I have added a footnote which I think covers this. Happy to hear your thoughts on the wording though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• "who had taken influence from Queen's Park to play association football over rugby": "taken influence" doesn't seem a very natural phrase. How about "who had been influenced by Queen's Park to play association football rather than rugby"?
• Do we know which of the sixteen teams did not pay a subscription fee, and why?

  I don't know. According to Stewart Mathers' book, the cup and 11 badges cost £56 12s 11d and Scottish F.A. Cup 1873–2017: The Complete Results says that 15 members "subscribed to the cost of the trophy" but nothing more. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: @Stevie fae Scotland: - it almost certainly isn't a reliable source, but for info this site claims that Southern were the only club not to contribute..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nice find -- Stevie, might be worth contacting them and asking what their source was for that. 14:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will reach out to them and find out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've had a response from the Vale of Leven History Project. The article was researched and written 12 years ago but the gentleman responsible unfortunately died four years ago so they aren't able to confirm his source. They did say his research was extensive and the site as a whole seems reliable if that helps any. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "which resulted in the need for byes before the introduction of the Scottish Football League in 1890 and the Scottish Qualifying Cup in 1895": I'm surprised by how definite this is -- it's definitely the case that there have been no byes since 1890? And why did the SFL make a difference?

  There have been byes but they became quite rare in the main competition after 1890 (I can explain in more detail but, essentially preliminary rounds and then the qualifying cup evened up the numbers so that, along with the previous season's semi-finalists and teams from the league, there were 32 in round one). I'm happy to consider alternative wording if you have any suggestions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I misread this; it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• "until they were back in play": since this is not the modern rule, can we get either a footnote or a link to explain this?

  This was a precursor to the modern offside rule so I have linked "out of play" to Offside (association football). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can see it's the same as the three-player rule given there, so can we link directly to that section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Of the 16 teams to enter the first round": it might also be worth mentioning here which of the teams no longer exist.

  Added the 12 that are now defunct. I imagine this will need a different source though so I will look for that tonight. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Added source which confirms the clubs are defunct and when they became defunt. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine as is, but I think it would also be fine (and more concise) if you simply listed the four that are not defunct -- maybe "As of 2023, only Dumbarton, Kilmarnock and Queen's Park still regularly compete in the competition, and by 1967 all the other teams had become defunct except for Vale of Leven"? Or if you want to have the 1967 before the 2023 info, as a more natural order, "By 1967 all the other teams had become defunct except for Dumbarton, Kilmarnock, Queen's Park and Vale of Leven, and as of 2023 only the first three of these still competed regularly in the Cup. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I was expecting to see a bracket, such as this, for the results. I looked at 2022–23 FA Cup and discovered to my surprise that the last stages are not presented that way. If there's a consensus at WP:FOOTY not to use brackets, I'd be curious to know why, but otherwise I'd suggest using a bracket format as easier to read. The text and other information you have could be included beneath the bracket in subsections.

  I don't like using the bracket for competitions like this where each round was the result of an independent draw and not like the World Cup where there is one draw before the tournament which determines the whole competition. I feel the use of the bracket to illustrate the competition implies that the ties were decided by a bracket and not the individual draws. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Is it known if the whole bracket was drawn at once, or if a redraw was done after each round, as the English FA Cup does?

  Same as the FA Cup, each round was drawn after the conclusion of the previous round. I don't know the exact date for each draw though as the sources only give the first round draw date and the Scottish Football Museums online archive doesn't include the SFAs minute books from 1873–74. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• "when Renton defeated Kilmarnock – who played the entire match with 10 players – 2–0 in the first round": a bit ugly with the en dash right before the score. Perhaps use parentheses or commas instead.
• Not a problem if you want to keep them but I don't think you need notes 2 & 3 -- you mention the scratches/walkovers in the text and use "w/o" with a link in the table. If there's a glossary of football terms, it would be good to link "scratch" to it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I don't have all the sources with me right now so I will double check a couple of these tonight. Added some initial thoughts though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Double checked what I wasn't sure on so I think I've answered everything. Happy to discuss further if you have any other thoughts. Thanks again, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly struck, a couple of nitpicks left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I've tweaked those now. Thanks again, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. There's a research possibility found by Chris and mentioned above, but without knowing if there's a reliable source available I'm not going to hold up support for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

image review

• File:Scottish_cup.jpg is sourced to Wikipedia and is missing a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Thanks. I'm not familiar with the processes for file uploading etc. Would you be able to explain what that means or provide a link to help me understand? I'm happy to look into this and try to resolve it but guidance would be appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are two issues: the photo source and the trophy itself. On the first, the source is given as "English Wikipedia". Where specifically? Is the named author an English Wikipedia user?

• On the trophy: what is the copyright status of the trophy itself? See commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, I have reached out to the uploader on Commons (and also to the account on Wikipedia I believe is theirs) to clarify. I'm not confident they will reply those as neither account has been active recently. It would be a shame to remove the image but there may be no alternative.

  The trophy itself, as a commissioned work made prior to 1 July 1912, I believe copyright would be governed by the 1862 Fine Arts Copyright Act and would lie with the SFA as a result. I don't know if that would have expired or not though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Just to let you know, I have added two images already on Commons (any further review would be greatly appreciated). I'll leave the trophy for a few more days but there's been no response so far. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Both new images are missing alt text, one uses a fixed px size and the other needs caption edits for grammar/style. In terms of licensing, File:1873–74_Scottish_Cup_1st_Round,_Clydesdale_6–0_Granville,_North_British_Daily_Mail,_27_October_1873.png gives a publication date that predates the existence of CC licenses - why is that believed to be the correct license? For File:QueensParkFC1874.jpg, when and where was it first published, and as per the UK tag in use what research was undertaken to try to identify the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have added alt text (any feedback on this would be appreciated) and removed the fixed px size (it made absolutely no difference to the image size). File:1873–74_Scottish_Cup_1st_Round,_Clydesdale_6–0_Granville,_North_British_Daily_Mail,_27_October_1873.png has got the wrong licence, it is well past the date for the copyright to expire so is now in the public domain. I will add the correct licence shortly.

  I don't know what research has gone into ascertaining the author of File:QueensParkFC1874.jpg. I know it was first published in 1874 in Glasgow and its history on Wikipedia (it has been uploaded twice, once under the name File:QPPioneers.jpg which used on the featured article List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup at the time of promotion before it was deleted in 2010 as it was identical to File:QueensParkFC1874.jpg which itself was uploaded in 2007 by an editor who has since been banned). I tried a reverse image search to see if that would shed any more light but I couldn't find anything. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just a thought about File:QueensParkFC1874.jpg, as the licence says "the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry", would it be worth contacting Queen's Park to ask? I can't think of a more reasonable enquiry to make. Of course, there are no guarantees they would get back to us or that they still have the records with the relevant information but it would prove we have done the research to try and find out at least. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Removed File:Scottish cup.jpg as I've had no response in my attempts to clarify its status. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias

• "The 16 teams that entered the competition consisted of the eight founder members.." As the 16 and eight here are comparable numbers, they should be formatted the same. Recommend switching 16 to sixteen.
• "Eight further teams joined the Scottish FA over the next few months and subscription fees from 15 of the members.." Same point.
• Provide a metric conversion for "200 yards by 100 yards", "8 yards apart" and "8ft high".
• Typos in the code for the 1873–74 Scottish Cup calendar table: scop should be scope. Also, add row scopes for this table.
• I'd recommend moving the content from Note 5 into the prose. I also don't think "Park" should be capitalised in "Public Park" in the table, as it isn't really a proper noun. In fact, I'd be in favour of just putting "Renton", with a footnote that it was in a public park.
• "Both ties were played at venues opposite to the draw after Clydesdale and Queen's Park won the coin toss." But I didn't think the draw had anything to do with where the match was played? I don't really understand what this is trying to say.
• "..in the 1874 Scottish Cup Final.." Remove the capital letter from "final".
• "..courtesy of Scotland internationals Billy MacKinnon and Robert Leckie." To avoid the false title, suggest rephrasing as "courtesy of the Scotland internationals".

That's all from me on the prose. Happy to take on the source review as well, but that will have to follow later. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. Think I've got all of these now. Wee question, what is now Note 6 is similar to Note 5 (match abandoned but result allowed to stand), I feel it would make sense to treat it the same and move it to prose. I might just do that but thought I'd mention it here first. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref #1: What makes "QPFC.com" a high-quality reliable source?

  I believe that source was added before I started editing the article. At the time, I assumed good faith of the editor who added it and used it myself to add to the article. Upon reflection, I don't know if it can be considered reliable particularly as the site is no longer available nor is the administrator/editor contactable. I've had a look and the information is sourceable to the Football Club History Database and to the Scottish FA Annual of 1890–91 so I will replace it with these. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #1: We use Wikipedia's MOS for titles, so the hyphen should be converted to an endash.
• Ref #5: As Gog said, what makes "The Beautiful Dribbling Game" a reliable source per our guidelines? I appreciate your reply to Gog below, but many Wikipedia pages also "contain hundreds of references to contemporaneous sources used by the author when collating the information", but we can not use them as references. For a self-published source to be considered reliable, it needs to be "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Further, the FA criteria requires sourcing to be to "high-quality reliable sources". Can you demonstrate that for Mathers?
• Ref #5: As also noted, "Amazon" is not the correct publisher.
• Ref #8: Same reliability question for "The Scottish Qualifying Cup 1895–1995". It appears to be written and published by Davidson, and no ISBN is listed either, which suggests it may not even have been formally published. What are the credentials of Davidson?

  Both Mathers and Davidson are experts in the relevant field. To make it easier, the Davidson source isn't necessary as the information is also in Mathers' book. For Mathers, he is the curator of the most comprehensive archive and database of Scottish football results through his website and mobile app (link to the app is available on the website here). His work has been cited by other Scottish football historians including Brian McColl on the Scottish Football Historical Results Archive. It has also been cited by the Historical Football Kits website. I believe the book was reviewed by the Scottish Football Historian Magazine but I've been unable to discern which edition as it was published before they started putting details of the articles on Twitter. I had hoped there would be more online that I could link for you to help demonstrate Mathers' credentials but that is all I've been able to find. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #9: Please provide a page number for the information this is sourcing.
• Ref #10: This needs more information about where you found this. Is this an online source, or a paper source? If paper, does it have a page number? If online, where? At the moment, it isn't verifiable, because it is unclear exactly how to find it.

  I found it online via Wikisource. I don't think it is available elsewhere online but I will have a look (and will add the page number). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Found on British Newspaper Archive. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #11: What makes "Scottish Football Historical Results Archive" a high-quality reliable source?

  The information is curated by Brian McColl but I honestly don't know how many different Scottish football historians have contributed to the website's content. It has been a huge collaborative effort. I can reach out to Brian as his email is available on the website if you require further information on this. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #12: Queries as per ref #5, but also needs a page number.
• Ref #13: What makes "fitbastats.com" a high-quality reliable source?

  (I assume you mean 14 as 13 is an SFA source) It is a reliable source but it is a little like RSSSF, good but not infallible. Source 14 is actually irrelevant as the information is already sourced by 13. 17 is similar as it is sourced to Potter and Jones book (7). 18 isn't currently sourced elsewhere but I can replace this. 24 is also sourced elsewhere. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #16: What makes "London Hearts Supporters Club" a high-quality reliable source?

  Similar to Fitbastats, good but not infallible. One use of this source is already sourced elsewhere, the other can be replaced. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #17: As ref #13.
• Ref #18: As ref #13.
• Ref #19: I'd recommend using Newspapers.com for this, and providing full sourcing details: {{cite newspaper |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/glasgow-herald-football-reports-for-satu/133992466/ |title=Football |work=The Glasgow Herald |page=6 |date=25 November 1873 |via=Newspapers.com}}
• Ref #20: As above: {{cite newspaper |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/glasgow-herald-renton-v-dumbarton/133992855/ |title=Football |work=The Glasgow Herald |page=3 |date=1 December 1873 |via=Newspapers.com}}
• Ref #21: As ref #13.
• Ref #22: I'd give this a more precise title, such as "Scottish Cup Matches: Queen's Park F.C. v Clydesdale".
• Ref #23: I'd match the source more closely: "Scottish Cup – Past Winners".
• Ref #24: As ref #13.

Spotchecks to follow once these have been resolved one way or the other. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Harris, your feedback is very much appreciated. I've answered as best I can above and will start to action these tomorrow. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I've got all of these now, let me know if I've missed anything though. If you don't have any of the books, I'm happy to provide photos of the relevant pages to assist with the spot checks. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your work on this. I'm content with the light usage of Scottish Football Historical Results Archive now, but my concerns remains around the heavily used The Beautiful Dribbling Game by Stewart Mathers. I take on board your comments, but Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy, has this to say: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I simply don't see any evidence that Mathers meets that criteria. Bear in mind that WP:FACR requires more than just scraping through the requirements of WP:RS, as it asks for "high-quality reliable sources" (my emphasis). Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am disappointed but I understand. There is a reason the bar is as high as it is and it's unfortunate that it isn't met here. I'm hopeful I can source everything elsewhere but if there was light usage, similar to that of Scottish Football Historical Results Archive, would that be acceptable? Meantime, I'm working on the assumption that it isn't and will seek to reference everything elsewhere. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Rules of the Scottish Football Association needs the publisher, location, author, OCLC and year of publication adding.
• Mathers: the ISBN given is that for the book The Beautiful Dribbling Game. Is the addendum referred to contained within this work? If so, it appears to be self published, what makes it a high quality, reliable source? And was the addendum really published (as opposed to printed) by Amazon?

  I believe the addendum may be self published. It is essentially like a second edition with a number of minor alterations, corrections and additions based on the author's research. Both the book and addendum contain hundreds of references to contemporaneous sources (including newspaper reports and minutes from SFA committee meetings) used by the author when collating the information so I have no doubts to its reliability. It can be independently verified using the sources listed at the back of the book. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ross: the title should be in title case.
• Article titles should be in a consistent case - either title or sentence.
• "History | 1867 - 1874": the link is dead; is that the whole of the title?

  Added an archive link. The title as it appears in the tab is QPFC.com - A Historical Queen's Park F.C. Website but on the page itself, it is just History and then 1867 - 1874. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Harrias, I may be in trouble with your union for the comments above. I am going to stop looking at the referencing at this point. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• No other images available? Even if only a photo of a programme or a team list or a newspaper report from the time.

  I know of a photo of the winning team but I am unsure of its copyright status, if I can ascertain that, I will add it. I'm happy to source newspaper reports to add as images as well. If you have any further information on this, it would be much appreciated as I haven't done so before. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Infobox: what does "(first title)" indicate? Has Queen's Park since changed its name?

  It's to show that Queen's Park won the competition for the first time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can think of a way of conveying that more clearly I would suggest removing it.

• "Scottish FA". Abbreviations should be given in full at first mention with the abbreviation in parentheses.
• "3rd Lanark RV". Was this the club's actual name, or just a commonly used abbreviation?

  The club's full name at the time was the 3rd Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers but it was most commonly known as 3rd Lanark RV, sometimes as 3rd LRV, and, from 1903, as Third Lanark. I can expand on first mention if you think that would be useful. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be useful, but it would then comply with the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "It is the oldest in association football", The oldest what?
• "from fifteen of the members were used to pay for the trophy." Is it known which club did not pay a subscription, and/or why this was?

  We believe it was Southern who didn't pay but, as discussed above, we're not sure of the reliability of the source, unfortunately. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "The Scottish Cup is the oldest trophy in association football and it has been awarded to the winner of every edition of the competition." I think that you need to state that the Scottish cup is still competed for, how frequently and who is eligible to compete for it.
• "The choice of venue for the final matches". I note the plural; it may be clearer to specify '... the final and any replay'?
• "with tape between them at 8 feet (2.4 m) high." 'with tape between them at a height of 8 feet (2.4 m)' may be clearer.
• "Rules": is it worth mentioning that there was a half-time break and that ends were changed after it?

  It was a little more complicated than that. Law 3 at the time was a little confusing. Ends were only changed at half-time if no goals were scored in the first half and that would be the only change of ends. If one or more goals were scored in the first half, ends were changed after every goal. That changed in 1875 to ends would only be changed at half time but the source quoted has the laws from 1875 so I have added a source with the laws from 1873. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Link hat-trick.
• "According to reports in The Herald". Why is the source given in line? Is this an especially contentious statement?

  No, it's not. I included it because I thought it made the sentences flow better. Happy to remove if you feel that would be more appropriate. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see why you included it, but the statement needs to be in Wikipedia's own voice. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "one of a select few cup finals". What was "select" about them. (Which Wiktionary defines as privileged, specially selected or of high quality.)

  Just that they weren't played at neutral venues. I've removed select as it keeps the language neutral. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• All of the unsourced notes need sourcing.

  Added for four of the five that were unsourced. For note 1, I'm unsure what the appropriate source would be so any guidance would be appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice prose, I enjoyed that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Started on these and will get the rest later this evening. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nae hurry. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, got most of them now. Added a couple of questions above where I wasn't sure of the best way forward so your thoughts would be appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Re- images, I have added two which were already on Commons. There is also File:Match report for Alexandra Athletic v Callander, Glasgow Herald, 20 October 1873.jpg which I have only omitted as it is also a first round match as I felt it would be a little cluttered with it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Stevie fae Scotland, when you've addressed all of my comments could you give me a ping? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Gog the Mild: Just went through all your comments again and that should be everything. My only question would be a source or sources for note 1. I'm not sure what would be most appropriate. My thoughts are that I could add a reference to the FA, FAW and IFA websites' cup pages to demonstrate they are all different but I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks again, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Added sources to note 1 so that is everything. If there is a better source(s) though, let me know. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be frank, having looked at Harrias's comments above, I don't think that the article is likely to be promoted off this nomination. It seems that you will need to do some re-sourcing. This should be doable - and is the sort of thing that frequently happens to first nominations. You may want to consider withdrawing this nomination, getting the re-sourcing done at your leisure, and then putting it to Wikipedia:Peer review for community comment before resubmitting to FAC. (If it does go to PR, do ping everyone who has commented on this page.) Re-sourcing will inevitably change the text, so I am a little reluctant to go through giving detailed comments on text which is likely to change. That said, if you would like me to have another look at the current version, let me know and I will. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm happy to consider this as the way forward. I'd like to review it properly first though as I've had a brief look back over everything and I think understand the fullness of the task. The positive here is that the Mathers source can be bypassed in a lot of cases. Part of the book is essentially just newspaper cuttings so I can reference these to the specific publication. I'll be perfectly honest, I don't know if all of those are available to cross reference online so, if they aren't or if I will need to find more sources/rewrite large parts of it, I'll withdraw the nomination at that point and work on it from there. If they are online and I don't need to rewrite anything then I'd still like to go ahead as I think this has been productive and that we are not far away. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: If you have any newspaper clippings in the Mathers book that you can't find elsewhere, then as long as you know the details of the clipping, I'd be happy with something like "Title". Scottish Newspaper. 1 January 1873, via Mathers, Stewart (2017). The Beautiful Dribbling Game: The Scottish F.A. Challenge Cup in the 19th Century. Great Britain: Stewart Mathers. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-9956998-0-9. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Stevie fae Scotland, that's fine. Give me a ping when you've "review[ed] it properly" and/or made any changes needed by resourcing and I'll run through it again. (A good way to get a grip on FAC requirements can be to review some yourself, or to go through other reviewers comments in detail. If this sounds as if it may be helpful then 1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season or Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891 (by Harrias) may be ones to start with.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A bit like my first GA review, I wanted to go through the process from this side first to get an understanding of it. Football/Scotland/politics are the things I know most about so I'll have a look at reviewing others in those areas before resubmitting because it does sound helpful. Thanks for your help with this. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Can I suggest a withdraw to work on this and bring it back? A very quick skim shows this isn’t at FA level at the moment. They’re a few things that need sorting, but the good news is that it’s not far off.

• "14 played a match after two teams". Per NUMBERS you should use either words or numerals when in close proximity, not both
• "After 16 matches and 38 goals, the inaugural cup was won": my first thought was that the whole competition comprised of just 16 matches.
  • @SchroCat: Ummm, it did, didn't it? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Oops - my error! (Although it could also be misunderstood that QP played 16 games) - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Queen's Park had been founded": QP was founded?
• "the previously solely England-based": this is rather clumsily worded

There’s nothing bad about the article—far from it—but it’s not yet at FA level. Please ping me when you bring this back and I’ll review more fully. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Ps. You could add to article and lead that it’s the second oldest competition in football too - that historical position is an important one in the context of the global game, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

This isn't progressing towards consensus for promotion so I'll be archiving it shortly. I'd strongly suggest peer review and/or FAC mentoring (the two are not mutually exclusive btw) before looking at another nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously, I'm not planning on submitting to PR imminently as there as still things to pick up from above but it would be greatly appreciated if anyone had the time to review an article I submitted to PR a couple of months ago (Faroe Islands national football team results (1988–2019)) so that it frees up that route. I think it will be the ne year at the earliest before I look to bring this back through the PR route so there's no rush. Thanks to everyone for assisting with this first-time nomination. I've appreciated your help and learned a lot from it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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