Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1925 FA Cup Final/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2020 [1].

1925 FA Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1925 final of England's primary football competition. Cardiff became the first Welsh team to reach a final here, but went on to lose through a single goal to Sheffield United. The goal was largely due to an error by poor Harry Wake who received considerable flak and even missed his chance at redemption two years later through injury. I started work on this article earlier in the year and got it to GA in May and feel it's now in a position to come to FAC. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC edit

Another great article, Kosack! I really enjoyed reading it. Some thoughts/comments from my side:

  • The Football Association > the Football Association.
  • The FA Cup has to be linked somewhere in the prose.
  • Maybe link the 1924–25 FA Cup season in "... in the first round of the cup"?
  • Link penalty area in "fouled Bill Rawlings in the penalty area".
  • "Cardiff City entered the FA Cup as one of the joint favourites..." Maybe clarify here already that Cardiff were also a First Division side?
  • Link Football League in "Cardiff City had joined the Football League in 1920...".
  • Maybe clarify that the losing side in the 1894 final John Sutcliffe played for was Bolton (and not Sheffield United).
  • "15 trains were laid" > Fifteen per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • Manchester is linked, but e.g. Liverpool is not.
  • "As of September 2020" maybe better to drop the month?
  • Also, I think it's better to clarify that United lost the 1936 final, as in the lead it's stated that "The match remains the last time Sheffield have won the competition".
  • Ref 49 has a 404 error. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look. I've amended all of the points you listed above, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass edit

  • Non-expert here, I'll get around to leaving some comments soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't really find anything so I'll do a source review instead:
  • You format RSSSF and Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation differently in their two references
  • assuming ref 25 should be marked as needing a subscription like the others – ref 30 as well
  • ref 31 needs a page number
  • Other than this consistent formatting is good (retrieval dates, authors, publishers)
  • spot checked the ones I could access: 2, 4 (a&b), 5 23 (a&b), 25 (a&b), 44 (a&b), 47, 49 (a&b) – all checked out. Ref 1 seems ok although I couldn't find anything about "The FA Cup is English football's primary cup competition and is organised by The Football Association (FA)." but I think this may be obvious enough to not need a direct citation...?
    Thanks for taking a look, I've fixed the above points and added a source for the last part just to be sure. Kosack (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kosack, there's still no page number for ref 31. Everything else is looking good. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, missed that one. Added now. Kosack (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Splendid. Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited a little. Just a couple of questions:

  • A recording of the final was flown to Cardiff immediately after the game and was shown on the evening of the final. To me a recording means a sound recording, so "shown" is surprising. Was it a film?
  • It was a film, I've changed the wording to reflect that. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you've put Matthews (2005) in the citation directly, but list the other three books used in the sources section?
  • Typically, if a book source is used to reference a single piece of material, I use it as a single ref. If it is used more than once, I'll include it in the bibliography format. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've got both {{cite book}} and {{citation}}; there used to be a reason not to do this, but I don't know if there still is. Nikki, I'm betting you're someone who would know?
  • It causes inconsistent citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the underlying problem is the inconsistency between CS1 and CS2 citations, so it's still an issue. I found the page that explains the problem: see Help:Citation Style 2#Style: CS1 citations include {{cite news}} as well, so converting {{cite book}} to {{citation}} didn't fix it. The simplest thing would be to convert the ones using {{citation}} to {{cite book}}. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, I used to use cite book for these until I was told during a review once that I should actually be using citation! Anyway, changed them to cite book now. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prose is competent but no more, but I don't see any specific problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed the issues you raised above. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit reluctant here, it's not really "also known as", FA Cup is just the abbreviation of the full name which is typically spelt out in full before the use of abbreviations. Most of the FA Cup Final FAs appear to use this format. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to "The Wednesday", from looking at the article, wasn't it just "Wednesday F.C."? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think The Wednesday was the team's full name at the time, see here. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link seems to show "The Wednesday" twice, (in the title and one as the full name), each other mention is just "Wednesday". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's probably more along the lines of, they wouldn't refer to themselves as Sheffield Wednesday everytime in the same way they wouldn't refer to themselves as The Wednesday, if you see what I mean. There is an image of the actual name change application in the article which is probably more definitive than anything in the article anyway. Kosack (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the first time a team from outside England had reached an FA Cup final since Scottish side Queens Park played in the 1885 final. - so the second time this has happened? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The match remains the last time Sheffield have won the competition. - "to date", "as of 2020"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this article is missing a "background" section, explaining what the final is, rather than just a cut into how the teams got to the final. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a brief overview for the competition. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to The Times, "practically underwater" - this seems a bit excessive, surely we can just say that The Times reported the flooding, without the hyperbole. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Second division? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned 2 goals conceeded by United in the lede, but not the Route to the final? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused, the goals are mentioned in the first paragraph? Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but you mention that they only conceeded 2 goals to get to the final, I think saying this specifically in this section would be good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its pre-match coverage, The Times - any idea who at the Times? This happens a couple times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the pre-war era, and a bit after in fact, the articles were rarely attributed. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Express pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit odd that the FA is explained so far into the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed with the addition of the background info above. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm happy to support thanks to these changes Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

I've added this to the Urgents list since we're passing the one-month mark with rather underwhelming support for promotion. It may need a revision pass to make it more engaging. --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias edit

  • Get rid of the flags in the infobox; as evidenced by the fact that they were competing in this final, both teams play under the auspices of the English FA, and neither team is 'representing' their country.
  • Speaking of this, I think there needs to be some explanation as to why Cardiff, a Welsh team, were playing in the FA Cup, given that "Route to the final" starts with "The FA Cup is English football's primary cup competition.."
    • Oh, I now see that this is in the pre-match section: I do think it would be better suited earlier in the article, when introducing either the competition, or Cardiff.
  • "..over local rivals The Wednesday.." Tighten this to "..over their local rivals The Wednesday.."
  • "..giving Sheffield their fourth FA Cup triumph. The match remains the last time Sheffield have won the competition.." Given that Sheffield Wednesday have won the FA Cup since, this could do with tightening a bit. While I think it unlikely that anyone is likely to be too confused by it, let's just make sure.
  • "Cardiff returned to Wembley two years later, in the 1927 final, to win the competition for the first time." How about "Cardiff returned to Wembley two years later, in the 1927 final, when they won the competition for the first time."
  • In light of the RFC on table captions (closed in May) and how FACs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, table captions should be included in the "Route of the final" tables. This quote by PresN might apply: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
  • Linking the (n)s in the table to the grounds used are WP:EASTEREGGs; I would suggest getting rid of them, and maybe using {{abbr|h|Home}}, {{abbr|a|Away}} and {{abbr|n|Neutral}} to explain the abbreviations.
  • Unlink the duplicate link to "FA Cup" at the start of the Cardiff City section.
  • "..with the poor state of the pitch being blamed for a lack of excitement in the game." Was this a consensus opinion?
    The book source doesn't go into too much detail, but does reference both the club and local media sources as stating the same. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..who were also appearing in their twelfth semi-final." Was this Cardiff's twelfth semi-final? I'm confused what the "also" is referring to?
  • "..Cardiff went into the match placed 13th, in the First Division.." Remove this comma.
  • "..with The Times predicting.." Avoid this noun plus -ing construction.
  • "..from 9:30pm the previous day.." Add a non-breaking space: 9:30 pm.
  • "A further 15 trains were laid on from the Birmingham and Wolverhampton areas and a further five from the Sheffield area." Remove the second "further", which is repetitive and unneeded. Also, per MOS:NUM, change "five" to "5", as it is a comparable number to the "15" and "34" that came before it.
  • Why does "Duke and Duchess of York" link to George VI? I'm pretty sure he was never Duchess of York?
  • "If the match ended in a draw, a replay was arranged for 29 April at Old Trafford in Manchester." Interesting, but the body of the article hasn't told us what date the final itself was on.
  • "..over the bar." Explain (probably just wikilink) this jargon.
  • As above, remove the flags from the "Details" section.
  • Given the article uses am/pm times, change the time format in the "Details" section to match this.
  • No need to link "London" in the details section (or anywhere) per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • What is sourcing the player's positions and nationalities?
I've removed the nationalities. The positions are sourced to the Wozencroft book and Cardiff's also to the Shepherd book. I did spot that they didn't support the FR and FL variants, so I've limited those to FW now. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..with the Mayor of Cardiff the same evening.." Is that the same as the "Lord Mayor of Cardiff" previously mentioned?
  • "..that this one fatal error.." Get rid of "fatal", it is too emotive for an encyclopaedia in this usage.

Nice article, I enjoyed that. Nothing major from me here, just minor MOS and prose fixes for the most part. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks very much for the review. I've addressed everything above with a few minor comments. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, happy to support this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM edit

Incoming, shortly, but first thing: this is a match at a neutral venue so clubs should be in alphabetical order in the infobox, match details etc. More soon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not particularly averse to this, there are currently five other FA Cup final FAs, 3 of which appear to use alphabetical (although the two earliest likely follow the winner first option) and 2 that don't. Most sources also don't appear to make this distinction, 11v11.com, FCHD, FACupfinals, historicalfootballkits, RSSSF and, perhaps most importantly, The FA itself. Are we sure that final listings were not based on other measures at the time? Kosack (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even The Guardian report on it from 1925 has Sheffield United first. It's odd because several reviewers have told me to place the names in alphabetical order when at a neutral venue, and I didn't even think to argue, because it made sense. But as you say, almost every source out there has it Sheffield first, perhaps just leave it for now. Next time I get told, I'll do the research before complying! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The newer final articles all seem to follow the alphabetical format, while the older ones seemingly follow the winner first format. Perhaps something changed at a certain point? I'm not really sure. Kosack (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Rambling Man, this is not intended in any way as a nag, but I was wondering if you were intending to come back to this one. If you were, I would particularly appreciate your comments on whether "its prose is engaging". Also per Laser Brain's comment above. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry. Selfishly I've been focussed mainly on my own stuff and keeping the main page up to snuff. Will try to take a look tonight. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won the competition" repeated in quick succession at the end of the lead.
  • " by The Football Association" the Football Association... (per lead).
  • "Clubs in the top tier of English football enter the competition in the third round..." this links to an archive of the rules from around 2003/04. This doesn't seem relevant or accurate for the 1924/25 competition. Which tier were Sheffield United/Cardiff City playing in for the 1924/25 cup: they entered in the first round?
  • Corinthian or Corinthians?
    In this context, I think Corinthain is the appropriate usage. Amended the table to match. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who scored the fifth goal?
  • Link own goal.
  • Consider adding the Anfield attendance.
  • " who replaced the injured Len Davies" replaced him during the game? link Substitute (association football) if so.
  • "described the play" seems a little.... USENg... for me?
  • Consider linking Laws of the Game (association football) for the use of "law".
  • "and Davies and teammate Jimmy Blair" perhaps "along with" to replace the second "and"?
  • "The last team based ..." wouldn't it be better to say "The only team..."?

Just been interrupted... more soon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cardiff went into the match placed 13th..." this is really interesting. Was the FA Cup final played before the end of the season? If so, that's worth noting (as it's been the traditional "post-season" showcase match for as long as I've been alive) and if not, the phrasing here is a little weird.
    Yes, Cardiff played two further league matches after this. It seems to have been the norm pre-war from what I can see. The finals were all generally held in the last two weeks of April with the league season stretching into May. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the two meetings" -> "in the two regular league meetings" (or similar) to contextualise why they'd already had two meetings.
  • "winning the second fixture by a single goal" is that 1–0 or 43–42? I think BNA or Guardian archives might be your friend here.
  • Link forward.
  • "who had scored two goals in the competition" to be fair, in one match...
  • "Duke and Duchess of York" suitable link for those specific dignatories?
  • "of The Football Association" see above, the or The?
  • "in the Box" mildly repetitive and odd capitalisation as it's not the formal title being used here.
  • "and "Land of Hope and Glory" and other songs"... and .. and.. feels clumsy.
  • "The match was held on 25 April 1925.[25]" oddly placed. This probably needs to go at the beginning of the description of the match background and hopefully merged as it's an awkward standalone sentence.
  • No idea who kicked the match off?
    I haven't been able to find a source that mentions which side did kick-off. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why repeat Hardy's first name?
  • "teammates ... team" repetitive.
  • Link "cross".
  • "penalty area" should have been linked back in the Sheff Utd section.
  • "brightly" is over-used (considering it could be considered POV too....)
  • Just a quick check for me especially, historicalkits is considered WP:RS?
    The site is run by Dave and Matt Moor. Dave is a bit of a kit guru and has published books on the subject such as this one. It's been used pretty widely on FAs in the past I believe also. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flooded onto the field" could be linked to pitch invasion.
  • " upon receiving the trophy" trophy quickly repeated, perhaps cup here?
  • Could link Cardiff mayor to List of mayors of Cardiff.
  • "one further final since" explicitly FA Cup final or domestic cup final?
  • "shown on the evening of the final" where? Which reminds me, how was this broadcast live? TV? Radio?
    The source doesn't mention where the film was shown unfortunately. The final itself wasn't broadcast live, the first was 1927 (handy being another Cardiff final!). Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cardiff team remained in London for two days after the final, returning to Cardiff" awkward twin use of Cardiff in a single sentence.
  • "Harry Wake, who had " no need to repeat his first name.
  • "o become the only team from outside England" as of?
  • Why is ref 1 "The Football Association" while ref 2 is "TheFA.com" (not italicised as websites normally are)?
  • Ref 27, ref 50, I've always considered that to be a website.
  • Consistently formatted ISBNs please (ref 46).
  • Ref 52, our own article has BBC News as non-italics.
    Citation Bot has been changing these en masse recently, I've changed it back for now. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11v11.com - I've been elsewhere advised to drop the .com. It's a reasonable point I suppose.

That's all I have. I thoroughly enjoyed my romp through it and hope these cookie cutter style comments which no doubt kill the prose are of some use. And of course, feel free to disagree or discount any of them. I'm here for the LOLs and would like to think I have a bit of experience in these articles, but it's apparent that what I do isn't always taken as face value of improving Wikipedia. Just one more thing: any images beyond Wembley you could add? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed everything above, a few comments on ones I was unable to action or clarification. Anything without a comment has been done hopefully. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kosack I made a few corrections, but there's a ref error (15 I think) looking for a ref name=shep which needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and any reason why we couldn't have File:Fred Tunstall Sheffield United.png in this article? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the ref error. I'm useless with images, but I can't see any sort of date of when that image was taken and there is no real author info either, which usually makes these unlikely to pass a review. Kosack (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I think it's moot because the image would have had to have been take more than 70 years ago so copyright has expired, but it's not essential. I'm supporting this nomination. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

Recusing from coordinator duties.

The sole photograph is appropriately licenced. It seems rather small, so I have enlarged it. Let me know if there was a reason for it being smaller. The images of the two strips are manifestly generated by an editor and so free use. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1925_FA_Cup_Final/archive1&oldid=989241801"