Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2013 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) 23 October 2021 [1].

2013 FA Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, arguably the most notable FA Cup final the 21st century. Manchester City had begun their meteoric rise to the outfit were currently accustomed seeing picking up silverware on multiple occasions every single season, while Wigan were exiting the Premier League after a poor season. And I won't spoil the punchline, but I bet you can guess what happened in this match... As ever, thanks to anyone who has constructive comments to add and for any time spent taking a look, I'll address all such issues as soon as I possibly can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

  • Image review removed one image for sandwiching, the rest of them look OK for licensing. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Not a full review, but I looked through the article (and enjoyed it), and have one comment to pass along. The paragraph in the "Post-match" section starting "Sporting Life described the win as..." is a bit repetitive in structure. It's this sort of thing that prompted me to write WP:RECEPTION, and I wonder if the same approach could be taken here. Could we restructure this to put similar comments together, in order to vary the rhythm and sentence structure? E.g. something like this for the first sentence (and I've elided the names of the writers since I think unless the writers themselves are important journalists it's the source that the reader cares about):

Sporting Life described the win as the "biggest FA Cup final shock" since Wimbledon's defeat of Liverpool in the 1988 final. Other commentators went further, with Fox Sports, BBC Sport and FourFourTwo all saying it was one of the biggest shocks in competition's history, and bookmaker William Hill agreeing.

That's a bit abbreviated, perhaps, and I'm fine with adding back in whatever you think is important; the main thing is that multiple major commentators said it was a huge upset and that's what we should tell the reader. Is FourFourTwo important enough to even name? (I've been gone from the UK for decades so I really don't know.) If you've read enough newspaper articles to support this could we expand the introductory comment to "most commentators" described it as one of the biggest shocks..."? That would be ideal. I had a look on newspapers.com; I don't have the Publishers' Extra subscription so I can't access the recent papers but it was pretty clear from the snippets that it was described in those terms in multiple US papers too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for your comment. You are almost certainly spot on that it's a bit "blah said bleh" etc, so I'll work it up a little based on your suggestion. Cheers for taking a look. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I've taken a stab at reducing the X said Y, Z remarked A, etc etc. Let me know if it's more in keeping with your thinking. Of course, happy to take onboard further suggestions (or even happier for you to tweak it yourself!) Thanks again for the comment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better to me. I will try to find time to reread the whole article with a critical eye and see if I can support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike thanks, very kind of you, I appreciate your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I wondered if you had any time to take a look? It's been thoroughly reviewed now by a raft of different editors, but I'd always appreciate another viewpoint? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I’ll be doing a complete review — it does look like you have a full set of reviewers already, so I hope you’re all set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru edit

Background
  • The only issue I can think of is that it might be neater to have a link to 2012–13 FA Cup in the background section, rather than not mentioning the year's competition until Route to the final
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final - Man City
  • "in the third round where they were drawn" -> "in the third round, in which they were drawn"
  • "Costel Pantilimon then denied Fernando Forestieri a goal-scoring opportunity for Watford" - slightly confusing wording. "Denied him an opportunity" sounds like might have had an opportunity but never got to have it. Whereas presumably in fact he did have an opportunity, just that the goal being denied by Pantilimon.
  • "Manchester City academy player Rony Lopes" - Consider linking to Manchester City F.C. EDS and Academy
  • "Tevez's pass to him allowed him to take the ball past Leeds United goalkeeper" - the "to him" is a bit redundant; also slightly confusing - can a pass really allow you to take the ball past the keeper? Seems more likely that it's up to your own skill whether you can do that or not, as long as the pass actually reaches you
  • "after eleven minutes after David Silva's volley" - repetition of "after"
  • "In the semi-final, City faced defending" - probably should be "Manchester City" for consistency
  • "faced defending FA Cup champions Chelsea at Wembley, a neutral venue, for the fourth time in the FA Cup" - ambiguous: is it the fourth time they played Chelsea at Wembley, or the fourth time in the Cup overall?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final - Wigan
  • "in the third round where they faced" - still prefer "in which" probably
  • "dominated the second half" - dominated it how? Sounds like more of an opinion than an objective fact. Might want to say they had more possession or more shots on goal or whatever.
  • "strike from outside the Wigan Athletic penalty area" - link
  • "in the area" - should probably be "penalty area"; although also need to consider whether this is too soon after the previous penalty area
  • "ensured the tie would need to be settled in a replay" - this use of tie might confuse people who don't know about it, especially as it can also mean a draw
  • "second appearance in the FA Cup Fifth round" - round numbers aren't usually capitalised in this article
  • "founding of the club in 1932" - up to you, but you could consider dropping the year since it was already mentioned earlier
  • "4–1 win for Wigan Athletic. Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents" - repetition of "Wigan Athletic"
  • "who they faced at Goodison Park" - should be "whom"
  • "McManaman then doubled the lead after a mistake from Phil Neville allowed him to take the ball past Everton's goalkeeper Ján Mucha before shooting" - one of those after ... before constructs, which end up sounding a bit confusing. I might reword to something like "McManaman then doubled the lead when a mistake by Phil Neville allowed him to take the ball past Everton's goalkeeper Ján Mucha and shoot"
  • "The win ensured Wigan would play in the first" - after a string of Wigan Atheletics, we now have a Wigan. Either make them all the same, or consider dropping the Athletic in all but the first mention.
  • "saw them faced Championship side Millwall" - "face"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Amakuru can't wait, thanks for the comments thus far. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-match
  • Any injuries or anything?
  • "after failing to lead Manchester City to a defence" - probably "he failed" instead of "failing"
  • "Mancini suggested" - not sure it's a suggestion, maybe just "Mancini said"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
  • "the ball finding Touré: his shot was pushed away by Joel" - not sure a colon is the correct punctuation here. Suggest either a semicolon, or perhaps a new sentence.
  • "8 yards (7.3 m)" - too much precision

", his shot went wide of the Manchester City post" - again, a new sentence or semicolon instead of a comma would seem preferable

  • "Manchester City's Matija Nastasić's long-range strike" - the double possessive here sounds slightly awkward. Maybe reword.
  • "wayward" - a bit journalese
  • "He passed to McManaman who was fouled by Zabaleta around 30 yards (27 m) from the Manchester City goal who was sent off after receiving a second booking" - the double "who" in this sentence makes it a bit confusing. Also I'd suggest the nugget about it being the third sending off should be here rather than in post-match.
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
  • "Wigan Athletic also were awarded" - maybe "were also"?
  • "succumbing to a 4–1 defeat" - a bit journalese as well
  • "Wigan Athletic defeated Manchester City" - adding an "again" in here might be useful
  • Also indicate what happened to them afterwards; I understand they lost to Arsenal in the semi and consequently failed to defend their trophy
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • No issues that I can see.

That completes the review. Looks good other than the above minor points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amukuru all done I think, many thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, thanks for that. (I didn't see the ping because of a typo). Happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon edit

I remember watching this. Some comments:

More to come. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Macclesfield's appeal for a penalty late in the match were turned down --> was or appeals?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents were --> elsewhere you call it 6th round
    It's interchangeable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • four minutes in the first half to secure victory --> there are quite a few "secure"s which is ok, but these 2 are a bit too close together for my liking
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With twelve minutes of the match remaining, Wigan Athletic broke with --> repetition of with
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan Athletic won the match 2–0 and progressed to the first FA Cup final in the club's history --> I can see the lure of this record, but at the same time it is inevitable giving the uniqueness of reaching the semis
    Yes, but it was a record at the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • prior to kick-off --> we need consistency: either kick-off or kick off, but not both
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan Athletic adopted a 3–4–3 formation while Manchester City played as a 4–2–3–1. --> this is a bit in an odd place. It would fit better at the end of the previous paragraph
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • finding Touré whose was pushed away by Joel --> something is missing
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and bookmaker William Hill agreeing --> I don't think a bookmaker's views have a place in an encyclopedia
    I disagree. Bookmakers are a very good source for this kind of thing. And in any case, it's simply a method of reinforcing the general vibe around the surprise result. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what happened to Martínez? Especialy since they got relegated
    Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 20 May, Wigan had an open-top bus tour of the town to celebrate the FA Cup victory --> a bit out of place. Should be closer to all the Wigan related stuff
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything about audience numbers for the broadcasts? In UK and globally?
    I haven't found anything in any reliable sources for this. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition --> is this backed up anywhere in the body of the article?
    Remnant of previous version. Got rid. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: In the United Kingdom, the match was televised by ITV and ESPN. --> I don't think this is important enough to make it in the lead, and definitely not the first paragraph.
    Ok, gone. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: As such, Wigan Athletic --> I don't see why we need the As such. The previous sentence has nothing to do with Wigan going to the Europa league, does it? Or may be As such is not trying to connec those 2 sentences? In any case, should Wigan's journey into Europe not be mentioned first, as winners?
    Deleted as such. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: becoming the first team to win the Cup and succumb to relegation in the same season --> that's not exactly what the body says. The body says from the highest tier
    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: should the man of the match not be mentioned?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Apart from these minor points, all looks good to me in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon thank you Edwin, I really appreciate the comments. I'll try to get to them in the next day or so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon okay, I've addressed almost all of these points, just the viewing figures which I can't find so I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Great review, thanks so much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9.4 million in the UK according to The Times [2]. I can't see anything in a reliable source about global audience numbers, there is only the Express saying it's half a billion, a record [3]. I'll have a better look later. I noticed in The Times they mention an issue about kick off time, which I think needs to go somewhere in the article. It was even debated in parliament! [4]. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon I added some more detail about that in the pre-match section before the kick-off details, and added the peak BBC figures in the post-match section. Anything else? Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Support from Cas Liber edit

I'll get back to this soon.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I made this edit only. Prose and comprehensiveness look okay to me though I am interested to see how Edwininlondon feels after review finished as he's asked some questions I'd have asked....but a thumbs up from me pending....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber thanks, I've addressed Edwin's point all bar the viewing figures which I can't find reliably sourced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber get the ping right.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber hi, just a courtesy ping to let you know that Edwin has completed his review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • The Daily Telegraph is inconsistent with the url-access=subscription
  • Ref 43 missing the 11v11 like the others
  • Authors (there's two) missing from ref 44
  • Ref 47 seems to be the only instance of Phil McNulty that is unlinked
  • ref 47 missing link and is formatted differently ("BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation")
  • Ref 50, The Independent could use a url-access=limited like the other ref from The Independent
  • Ref 66 should probably italicize Forbes
  • ref 67 needs a work/publisher or something
  • Ref 69 should presumably include the author (Julien Desbuissons).
Reliability
  • Seems fine overall
Verifiability
Aza24 many thanks, I've addressed all your comments I believe. Please let me know if there's anything else required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Oldelpaso edit

  • This is an underdog story, but until the post-match section we only get a limited sense of this. While adding emphasis while maintaining encyclopedic tone isn't always easy, we have things like City having won the last 7 meetings between the sides without conceding a goal, Wigan were 40 points behind in the league[5].
    Not strictly true, we do have "with Wigan Athletic in eighteenth place in the league and Manchester City in second position" in the Background section, but I agree that can be bulked up with the factoids you've mentioned here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added those factoids now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning Wigan reached the League Cup final in 2006. Maybe that they became 43rd winners?
    I'm not seeing the relevance of that to this FA Cup final 7 years later? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the earlier rounds, some more about the degree of squad rotation may be helpful. Wigan were battling relegation, at what point did the cup become a priority? Likewise City harboured title hopes at the time of the early rounds.
    I can add a little more but I'm not able to project "at what point did the cup become a priority", that's down to Martinez and his decision-making toward the end of the season. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • City rested a number of players in the preceding league game [6]
    That doesn't seem to be a reliable source, perhaps we can find a better one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added that eight players were restored to the starting lineup, with reliable sourcing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology of Post-match a bit bumpy. Wigan playing in Europe the following season is mentioned before events two days after the game. Plus Wigan were in the Europa irrespective of the result of the final.
    I've rejigged this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan were a third tier club when the 2018 meeting occurred. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oldelpaso I've made an attempt at most of your points. Let me know if you can help with the "squad rotation" and potential OR thing about when Wigan starting taking things seriously in the cup? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from JennyOz edit

Hi TRM, a few nitpicks...

  • lede: Watson outjumped Jack Rodwell - Watson name and link
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, regards, JennyOz (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz all done bar Tevez. Cheers for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz adjusted the one I mis-read/mis-understood!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, all good, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

@WP:FAC coordinators: four supports, passed image and source review, can I launch another? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC) @WP:FAC coordinators: any word? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposed to be staying away from WikiCup competitors, but this looks pretty uncontroversial, so go for it. And if Cwmhiraeth strings me up, so be it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just FTR, the original ping isn't in my notifications list, only this latest. Anyway no prob from my side either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, for once not a query about how the player nationalities were sourced but where the players' numbers came from -- apologies if I missed the obvious... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Added explicit sources for that season's squad numbers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2021 (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/2013_FA_Cup_Final/archive1&oldid=1051421219"