Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976)/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) 13 July 2020 [1].

History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976) edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first century in the history of the Wales national football team, covering the highs and many lows from its incarnation in the 1870s to the mid 1970s. The article has been something I've slowly worked up when I found the time and I think it's a pretty thorough and adequately detailed piece on the period. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler edit

Although I don't use the word "football" for this sport, nor for that matter the words "side," "fixture," "edition," and "duty," in the manner employed, I can see that they belong here to an unassuming but comfortably eloquent prose style for which the author has my admiration.

My available time for doing reviews is unpredictable these days, so I can't be sure when I'll return to the article. If I do not return, the coordinators may consider this brief review to constitute support for this nomination. Here are a few minor comments:

  • The Wales national football team is the third oldest side in international association football.
  • Would it be worthwhile to say that this is the history of the first century of Wales national team? Otherwise, novices such as I might wonder why the team folded after precisely one hundred years.
  • I've added a see also link to the page that will cover the rest of the history. It's a red link for now, but is on my to do list after I finish up Phil Dwyer's page. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wales played its first fixture in March 1876, four years after Scotland and England had contested the first-ever international match.
  • Are fixture and match used synonymously?
Yes they are. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team played annual fixtures against Scotland, England, and later Ireland and these fixtures were eventually organised into the British Home Championship, an annual competition between the Home Nations.
  • Do you need the second "fixture?" (i.e. will "and these were eventually" be enough?)
  • Wales did not win its first championship until the 1906–07 edition of the competition and the triumph remained the nation's only title before the First World War.
  • Will "the triumph remained its only one before the First Word War" suffice? (You've already mentioned the championship = title.)
  • Wales improved considerably in the post-war period, and claimed three titles during the 1920s, although the team was often hindered by the reluctance of Football League clubs to release its players for international duty.
  • "... during the 1920s, despite the team being often hindered by ...?"
  • The situation was so grave that, in the early 1930s, Wales was forced to select a team of lower league and amateur players in a side that became known as "Keenor and the 10 unknowns", in reference to captain Fred Keenor and the relative obscurity of his teammates.
  • I sometimes use the hyphen, e.g. "a team of lower league- and amateur players" to signify that "players" is doing double duty. Similarly, I might have written either "a reference to both captain Fred Keenor and the ..." or "a reference to captain Fred Keenor and to the relative ..." But, your call.
  • I've adjusted the reference part. Not sure about the hyphen though. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When able to call upon its strongest side, Wales enjoyed its most successful period in the British Home Championship, winning four titles in the six years before the Second World War.
  • A sentence begun with "When able to call upon its strongest side," (i.e. "in every instance of being able to call upon its strongest side,") which by the way is nicely phrased, is usually completed with something generic, not specific. So, do you mean: "Able to call upon its strongest side, Wales enjoyed its most ...?"
  • As competitive football resumed after the war, Wales began facing opponents from further afield and played matches against numerous other European nations for the first time.
  • A "resumption" is a one time event, unless this one happened in fits and starts, and that needs to be emphasized. So, "When competitive football resumed ...?"
  • "further afield." Do you want "farther?" ("far, farther, farthest afield (literally, "out of the field, region, country, ..."))
  • "in 1958 and progressed from its group before being defeated by Brazil in the quarter-final."
  • How much did it progress? Some indication would help here.
  • The side suffered a decline in the 1960s as the 1958 World Cup generation gradually retired.
  • Is "1958 World Cup players" meant? What is generation in football?
  • Yeah it's referring to the group of players. In football, the core of a team that plays together for a considerable amount of time is sometimes referred to as a generation. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dave Bowen replaced Murphy and managed the team for a decade between 1964 and 1974 but enjoyed little success, failing to qualify for a World Cup or the early editions of the European Nations' Cup (later known as the European Championships).
  • Is "for the decade" meant instead of "for a decade?" Or, is the latter even needed?
  • He did help the side to share the British Home Championship during the 1969–70 season, the last time Wales won the tournament before it was discontinued. In total, Wales won the championship 12 times, sharing five titles.
  • It is not clear what was discontinued.
  • Bowen left the role in 1974, having turned down the chance to take the position full-time.
  • But you never mentioned earlier that the position was part-time.
  • He was replaced by Englishman Mike Smith who led the side to the quarter-finals of UEFA Euro 1976 in its centenary year, before being defeated by Yugoslavia.
  • @Fowler&fowler: Thanks for taking a look and supporting , I've made the amendments you suggested above. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the captions would benefit from editing for grammar and clarity
I've made a few amendments, if there's any you think I missed, let me know. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Meredith and Ford images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size - Removed
  • Suggest adding alt text - Added
  • File:Wales_national_team_1900.jpg: as per the UK tag, the image description should specify research done on authorship, and when/where was this first published? Same with File:Wales_national_team_1887.jpg
    These aren't my images, so I can't specify what has been done? Kosack (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could either do so yourself, or ask the uploaders if still active, or use different images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fma12: As the uploader of both images, are you able to assist with the point above? Kosack (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kosack: I cited the corresponding source of those images (bbc.com in both cases), which did not indicate authorship. Since I uploaded the pics, I haven't gone further with them to determine who were the photographers. Nevertheless, the website indicated that all the photos were on display at the Powysland Museum in Welshpool, Powys (November 2011). I don't know if that museum still exists but anyone could answer them about the origin of the photographs, I guess. - Fma12 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be one way to fulfill the tag requirements. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Billymeredith.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    Added tag, I'm not sure of the author situation so it's difficult to comment. Kosack (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea really, I've tried searching for a usage of it but no luck. If this needs to be removed, so be it. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless more info can be found, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fred_Keenor,_Brentford_FC_footballer,_1919.jpg: the given tag claims publication before 1925, but the stated source is after that date
    Ping @Beatpoet: for clarity here as the uploader. Kosack (talk)
    Not sure what to say, other than that this picture was taken at the end of the 1918-19 Brentford season. Beatpoet (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately created and published aren't the same thing. Is there any known publication before the given source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Charles,_Wales_versus_Scotland,_Ninian_Park,_1954.jpg: source link states the licensing is NC-ND, not CC0
    The image is part of the Geoff Charles collection at the National Library of Wales. Charles released the images which is likely where the current licence came from and the image was simply directed via Flickr rather than the collection itself. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That link is dead, do you have a source that specifies the terms of release? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This link should work now. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see any mention of this licensing at that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Commons category for Charles' photographs verifies that the works are released for use. Would this not match the licence in use? Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have OTRS access to verify what the ticket says; the page linked doesn't itself have licensing information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Trevor_Ford_(1959).jpg: source link states the licensing is CC0, not BY-SA
    The licence appears to be auto-generated by the national library tag? Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See the template documentation for instructions on alternate licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted license.
  • File:The_Israeli_team_playing_against_Wales_at_the_Ramat_Gan_stadium,_1958_D448-079.jpg: what's the status of this image in the US?
    How would I find this out? Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to determine this as the site itself has no information on publishing. The article does appear to pass the license attached, is that not sufficient? Kosack (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to be hosted on Commons the image has to be free in both its country of origin but also the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure what the play is here, does the image need to be removed? Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not free in the US, you could either remove it or try for a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused, the licensing page on Commons states that a work is usable if it is in the public domain, which this is based on the license included? "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license" Kosack (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Swansea_Town_Football_Club_(20740154461).jpg: as per the Flickr notice, the tag provided and the licensing at the source don't match.
    As per the Charles image above, it's a crossover with the Charles collection and Flickr again. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wales_V_Scotland_3386999.tif: this meets the threshold of originality; the current tagging is incorrect
    What license does it require? Kosack (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current US tag is correct for US status, it just needs a different tag for its status in Wales. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a license comparable with other NLW material. Kosack (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it still has the PD-text tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a tag to the infobox to cover its use in Wales, with the author information etc, as the comparable NLW articles did the same. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't keep a PD-text license on this image, because PD-text doesn't apply in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: God I hate image licensing, I deliberately picked these as they were already uploaded. I'm gonna need some help on these if possible? Image licensing is a foreign language to me I'm afraid. I'm happy to remove any image that can't be used. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, each comment has a response either from myself or the original uploader. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed the images with issues and the extra pd tag from the newspaper extract. I've matched the Charles and Allchurch images to the licenses at the National Library of Wales (the links to the original releases are both included with the images). The last outstanding one is the Israel image which I'm confused about. As I noted above the license page at Commons states an image can be used if it is released into the public domain, which the licence notes it has been. Or am I reading that wrong? Kosack (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commons requires that images be in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the work's country of origin as well as the US. The current license states that the image is in the public domain in Israel, which is half of the equation. But just because something is in the public domain in one country, doesn't automatically mean it's in the public domain everywhere. We need a tag indicating its status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Israel image as well if it can't be verified. Kosack (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Is "Wales", referring to the football team, a singular or plural subject of a sentence? I see "its" used for "Wales", and "their" used for "the Welsh side" or "the team", but isn't it the case that organizations are plural in British English?
  • The singular/plural issue is one that comes up a lot in football articles. At my first FAC, Struway2 provided some thoughts on the situation and these are generally what I try to adhere too. As you say, using its for the the team as an entity and "the team's", "the side's" or similar when referring to the collection of players. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at Struway2's comments and I can see why he suggests this usage, because US editors are likely to be surprised by the plural for "Wales", but I don't think that's a good enough reason not to use the natural British English usage. My vote would be to go with the plural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to use either, when I first started coming to FAC there were very few football articles and this is what seemed to gain approval. Recently, there has been a glut of football articles coming through that adopt the plural usage and now I'm on the opposite side again ha! Kosack (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, great. Can you go through and make whatever changes you think are appropriate, and let me know? Then I'll do another copyedit pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through now and rewritten to use the plural throughout. If you see any I missed, let me know. Kosack (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look and it seems fine; I'll do another pass once you've responded to the points below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Able to call upon its strongest side, Wales enjoyed its most successful period in the British Home Championship, winning four titles in the six years before the Second World War. This reads oddly, coming as it does right after a sentence that says Wales was not able to call on its strongest side. How about something like "By the late 1930s Wales was again able to call upon its strongest side, and enjoyed its most successful period in the British Home Championship, winning four titles in the six years before the Second World War."? - Added
  • the FAW put forward a motion that national teams be granted the right to overrule clubs on player selection, although this was rejected: I assumed this motion was put to the FA, but from the following sentence it appears that's not the case. So who was it put to?
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't state who it was put to. The wording suggests it was a vote, possibly between the national associations of the UK but I don't think it's clear enough to support including that. Kosack (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following year, Wales defeated Scotland for the first time in its history after 29 years having both "for the first time in its history" and "after 29 years" together like this reads clumsily. Can we cut "after 29 years", and assume the reader can work it out? Or rephrase?
  • Wales was unable to capitalise on the victory as they finished second to England in the 1905–06 British Home Championship after failing to win either of its other fixtures an example of mixed singular/plural: "they finished" but "its other fixtures". I've been in the US for over 30 years but "it" for a team still sounds very strange to me; I really think it should be plural throughout. At least one of my copyedits uses the plural but I'll fix that if you convince me that it should be singular.
  • Does the switch to plural now address this? Kosack (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team were still reliant on England defeating Scotland to secure its second championship. Despite leading 4–2 at half-time, Scotland lost the match 5–4. I think this should conclude with the direct statement that Wales won the championship; perhaps "To secure the championship, the team still needed England to defeat Scotland. Scotland led England 4–2 at half-time, but lost the match 5–4, handing the title to Wales." - Done
  • FYI, I have access to the London Times archive and am looking up a couple of match reports as I go through the article, just for fun; if you don't have access and are interested in any of them let me know. The first one I've found is a short report on the 5-1 defeat by Scotland in 1881.
  • Trevor Ford became Wales' leading goalscorer of all time: why "all time"? It was just up to that time; he's been passed by Bale and Rush since then. - Dropped
  • Wales celebrated its 75th anniversary by winning its first post-war British Home Championship title by sharing the 1951–52 British Home Championship edition with England: needs rephrasing to avoid "...by...by...". - Done
  • The period also saw the emergence of John Charles for the national side. Not quite right; he didn't emerge for the side; he emerged as a regular in the side, or a star of the side, or he established himself in the side -- whatever best fits the source. - Done
  • The result subsequently eliminated Wales from qualifying for the World Cup: why "subsequently"? Wasn't the effect immediate? - Dropped
  • resigning later in the year due to commitments with his role at Manchester United: I suspect this should be either "conflicts with his role at Manchester United" or "commitments at [or to] Manchester United". - Done

I've finished reading through. This is close to FA standard; the points above are fairly minor. I'd have copyedited a little more if I knew we were going to make Wales plural; there are times when the prose seems to awkwardly skirt the usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know if there is anything else you find. Kosack (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fixes look good. I'll read through again this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need the footnote on the last sentence of the lead?
    The 1976 tournament was unusual in that only the semi-finals onward were played in the host country. As a result, Wales are not counted as having qualified for the tournament despite reaching the quarter-finals. I thought this was worth pointing out to the casual reader. Kosack (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Freeman's Journal claimed: why is this match report qualified like this? None of the others are.
    The result was a heavy loss for Ireland and Stead's book writes that the Freeman's Journal were trying to lessen the importance of the match by stating that the name of the Irish team was basically hijacked by local amateurs. Kosack (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting below, since this is the last point and it's minor, but the perfectly good reasoning you give here isn't really apparent in the article. If you can source some paraphrase of "were trying to lessen the importance" that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded on this information a bit more. Kosack (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • simultaneously recording a first clean sheet against the Scots: I think we could cut this -- if they'd never avoided defeat before, of course they'd never kept a clean sheet. - Removed
  • The paragraph about Roose needs a little restructuring -- it says he was dropped but then goes on to talk about his subsequent international performances.
    I've rewritten now so that it maintains a chronological timeline. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a second pass. Once these points are fixed I'll be glad to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the points above. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor point left above that doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help and support. Kosack (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

  • Don't know how I missed getting this into the FAC urgents list -- let's try something more direct: TRM, do you think you could review?
    I sure can. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll also need a source review.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM edit

Lead to "New century" section edit
  • "Wales played ..." quick repeat of Wales.
  • Would be better to move that Wales to " The team played " instead, as you mention two other teams in between.
  • " and later Ireland and" comma after Ireland.
  • "Wales did not win their first championship" is it worth noting in the lead when they actually got their first win in international football?
    I did consider this, but in trying to keep the lead to the point, I omitted it in favour of larger achievements. I can add it in if you think it's particularly worthwhile? Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think their first ever win is probably notable enough for the lead. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1906–07 edition of the competition" -> "the 1906–07 tournament" -> I can't think of a single BritEng person that refers to these as "editions".
  • "1950 and 1954 editions" tournaments, and put "tournaments" inside the last pipe to avoid easter egg year links.
  • " in 1958 and " another easter egg year link.
  • "in the quarter-final in the following round." I don't think you need "in the following round". I know what you're saying, you want to make it clear it was the very next match, but this current wording reads odd to me.
  • " 12 times, sharing five titles" I would prefer "twelve times" since you have "five titles" here.
  • Any chance of a lead image?
    As you can probably tell by the image review above, I've had problems finding suitable images to include here and removed several due to licensing problems. I'm not aware of any that would be worth going in the lead that are freely available. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no stress. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in rugby" I would be explicit and call in rugby union.
  • But I'm not clear on the relevance of this to the football team?
    I've rephrased this as Kenrick was responding to the piece but instead pushed for a football match. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushed ahead" and "pushed forward" in the same paragraph, could use a sprinkle of variation.
  • "The result remains" normally have an "as of" here, although I confess it's unlikely that Wales will be so defeated again...
  • " Wales and England met" England is overlinked.
  • "were less than 100 in" fewer.
  • "were defeated 2–1" as it's so notable, could we also know the oppo scorers?
  • "against England. ... against the English" bit repetitive.
  • "recorded a second victory" who scored?
    This match finished 5–4 with 8 different goalscorers. Listing them all seems a bit like overkill perhaps. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inaugural edition of the tournament was" ->"The inaugural tournament was"
  • "highest placed finish to date in 1895 by finishing" repetitive.
  • "thrashing" journalese.
  • "crushing" likewise.
  • "of his side's goals" redundant.
  • " fell on deaf ears" colloquial.
  • " revived hope" for whom?
  • "deemed unlucky" by whom?
  • "where three goalkeepers were used" by Wales? And why?
  • " era, goalkeeper Leigh Richmond Roose entered" comma after Roose.
  • " began proving" began to prove.
  • "the final edition of the championship before " -> "the final championship before "
  • "with one point." Interesting. You and I both know this means they drew a single game, but I wonder if our non-footy oriented readers get that connection? Perhaps expand?
  • "including Leigh Roose" no need to repeat his first name, the mention by surname is unambiguous.
  • "40-year old" shouldn't that be "40-year-old"?
  • "Wales' first post-war match" first official international you mean?
  • " 45-year old" again " 45-year-old"?
  • "his final cap, 25 " link cap.
  • "defeat Scotland. Scotland led" quickly repetitive.

That's taken me to the "1920s success and decline" section, I'll pause here while we see if these comments are useful, and come back to complete the job as required! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for taking up the review. Apologies that it took me so long to address the issues above, I've had very little time available here recently. I've fixed all of the points above with a couple of notes to one or two as well. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"1920s success and decline" section to "Austria and The Battle of Wrexham" section edit
  • " unable to defend their title in the 1920–21 season, losing 2–1 to Scotland in the opening game." this is fake causality, they didn't fail to defend the title because they lost to Scotland. I would end the first sentence after "season" and then go on to describe the whole ":reason why.
  • "the national team often found itself losing out to the domestic game" I think I know what you mean, but are you saying this in terms of attendances, or personnel availability?
  • "victory over Ireland ... victory over Ireland" repetitive.
  • "an instant impact" a little bit journalistic for me, it obviously wasn't literally instant...
  • ", scoring in a... scored again... with Ted Vizard scoring" repetitive.
  • "a last minute interception" doesn't feel encyclopedic, last minute-> late, not sure how to change "interception" but it doesn't seem quite appropriate.
  • Link own goal.
  • "winning each one" tiny bit strange to my ear, why not "winning them all"?
  • "the most any player has scored in a single match against Wales." citation?
  • "a Scottish newspaper" do we know which one?
    Unfortunately, the ref doesn't give a name of the newspaper. Kosack (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link header.
  • "in 1934–35, " +season/competition/tournament etc
  • "via goals from" with rather than via.
  • "won ... by winning... " repetitive.
  • "The following year..." new section, perhaps reiterate where we are.
  • "less of a draw" a bit like the "interception" above, perhaps best to avoid football parlance in general prose, could have the potential for confusion (like when I once offered "the tie was tied"...)
  • "two sides meeting 15 times" above you had "26 players in only 3 games" which I guess is an interpretation of MOSNUM for comparable items, one of which I'm less enthusiastic about, so perhaps either make that "26 players in only three games" or make this "2 sides meeting 15 times" or better still, "two sides meeting fifteen times".
  • " the national side was rocked" Wales, because you've mentioned other national teams in between.
  • also feels like "rocked by" is a little POV/emotive.
  • "One of the ... one of ..." repetitive.
  • "The following year" you could link this, no?
  • Link "kit".
  • " in 1950 and" perhaps "in the 1950 tournament and" and link the 1950 World Cup therein?
  • "avenged" feels POV.
  • "His first match in charge of the side was a match against " delete "a match", redundant.
  • "17 years at Ninian Park" 17 years in general or 17 years of matches at Ninian Park?
  • " as "indeed the " what does "indeed" add to this?
  • "as a tie" draw?
  • "German or English had" comma after English.
  • "Tapscott [...] had " can you check MOS:ELLIPSIS here, I don't think the brackets are necessary, and just ensure you have non-breaking spaces before each one.
  • "while The Times wrote "there" The Times didn't write that...

Kosack That's the next three sections done, let me know when you're good to continue, and by all means take your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've amended all of the issues above. Kosack (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"1958 FIFA World Cup" section to "World Cup generation fades" section edit
  • "Jimmy Murphy as manager in 1956. Murphy's..." quick repeat of his surname, just "His" would be fine and unambiguous.
  • "drawn qualifying groups. Wales were drawn" drawn .. drawn, repetitive.
  • "John Charles became highly critical" why not just "was"?
  • Why is Ray Daniel so non-notable despite being called into the Wales squad?
  • Link FIFA.
  • Belgium is overlinked here.
  • "a favourable draw " according to whom?
  • "Ford, the nation's record goalscorer. Ford had been" He had been...
  • Is that Saltsjöbaden? If so we should respect the diacritic.
  • "had weakened the side" any more on this, like was it because players had died, or hadn't been playing football or something else?
  • "for Wales after 27 minutes" the 11v11 source you used for the other goal says 26 minutes.
  • "10-men" not sure that needs hyphenation in that usage.
  • "Sweden which had already" that's odd phrasing for me, I would say "who".
  • "see it advance" similar, them? I haven't noticed this prior to this point...
  • "with 10-men following" same, no hyphen needed.
  • "attempts to recover" "failed to recover" repetitive.
  • "the post World Cup" now then I would put a hyphen between "post" and "World".
  • "The following year, the post World Cup..." the previous year mentioned was 1959, so that makes "the following year" 1960, but the BBC source says that game was played in 1961. 11v11 concurs.
  • Re: first match vs Rep of Ireland. "Goals from Cliff Jones and Phil Woosnam won the match for Wales" but 11v11 says this game ended 3–2 so while what you've written is technically correct, it could be misleading. And this will need to be sorted chronologically with the England game.
  • :Leave myself a marker here for now. Kosack (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A shared British Home Championship title in 1959–60 British Home Championship and" this is noted after the 1961 matches...
    This was intended to be a build up to the feeling of positivity heading into the qualifying campaign, combined with the other tournament in the sentence as a general background to the build up. I can rewrite if you still think it's necessary. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to the following year's campaign" could be linked?
  • "positive finish" I guess that's the 5–1 victory against Ireland?
  • "Spain for the first match... Spain won the first match" repetitive.
  • "Wales' goal. The result eliminated Wales from qualifying for the World Cup.[117] Wales" Wales ... Wales ... Wales...
  • The qualifiers v Spain were played in April/May 1961, again, before the Ninian Park record, so double check the chronology here.
  • Worth noting that first friendly v Brazil had a crowd of 100,000? Would that be a record for the team?
    The record is believed to be 110,000 against East Germany a few years previously but some reports I've seen have cast doubts over the reliability of that number so I chose to omit it. Kosack (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inaugural edition in 1960" I would make that the whole pipe.
  • "demoralising" not in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Somewhere we should be linking the 1964 tournament.
  • Wales' qualification group for 1966 has its own specific article at 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 7.
  • "which ended in a goalless draw." probably should state against whom the match was played.
  • Could note the Soviet Union had finished as runners-up in the 1964 tournament.
  • "previously unbeaten opponents" I assume this means just during qualification, not forever?
    Yes indeed. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amended everything in this section now. A couple of comments above also. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Late 1960s struggles" section onwards edit
  • " UEFA Euro 1968 " it wasn't called that contemporaneously was it?
  • "1967–68 editions" put editions into the pipe. But prefer "competitions" or "tournaments" to "editions" any day.
  • "which of the Home Nations would progress" how many could progress?
  • All of "Wales recorded a creditable ... a single point.[131]" is referenced by RSSSF which doesn't list goal scorers, make claims like "creditable win" etc.
  • Any reason why we have these latter Home Nations at a year range when they took place in a single year? You have "of the last British Home Championship of the decade " but of course we then have 1969–70 British Home Championship which presumably was still within the same decade if the name of the article is to be believed?
  • "Late 1960s struggles" section title and then in the section itself we have "Wales' struggles during the 1960s" not just late-1960s?
  • "to not allow" split infinitive, no to allow.
  • "until a day before" surely "the" day?
  • "Gareth Davies" our article has him as Davis.
  • No need to link common geographical terms like Rome.
  • "Goalkeeper Gary Sprake later " avoid false titles.
  • "shambles [...] some" see previous MOS:ELLIPSIS comment.
  • "when it failed " unclear what "it" refers to here, the incident or FAW, consider a re-word.
  • "The success was the final time Wales were victorious in the competition. The title was the 12th time it had won the competition and the fifth time it had shared the title." merge these and per MOSNUM, 12th/fifth should be "12th/5th" or "twelfth/fifth".
  • "The success..." starts two sentences in quick time, jarring.
  • "for UEFA Euro 1972" same again, it wasn't called that then.
  • "The side began" you mentioned several sides previously.
  • "than their birth" perhaps add "own" before birth to make it crystal clear.
  • "four consecutive seasons between 1971 and 1975" that's five seasons.
  • And a bit more confusion, the 1971 tournament Wales finished third, not fourth, despite RSSSF's typo.
  • "Hockey would turn villain" journalese.
  • "to be sent-off" no hyphen. And link.
  • " he felt "your physical well being " I would rephrase: " he felt his "physical well-being ""...
  • " full-time occupant and offered Dave Bowen the position on a permanent full-time" repetitive "full-time" here.
  • "for UEFA Euro 1976 as " again, should use the contemporary name.
  • "to win in Hungary since 1909, winning 2–1 via goals " win, winning repetitive.
  • Euro 1976 qualifying is a bit weird when you say "qualify for the final eight" because it turns out that means qualification for the finals. And little wonder I was surprised to see a friendly against England jammed in between the "rounds". Perhaps make it clearer how Euro 1976 qualification/finals worked, ironically for those of us who have a little bit of knowledge...?
  • "1976 edition of the European Championships" there, it's definitely not Euro 1976. And do avoid that "edition" thing.
  • There's a link for two-legged tie.
  • "The second-leg was" no hyphen required.
  • "lead after only 45 seconds" the reference doesn't support that.
  • " Glöckner controversially awarded " just "He... " as there's no ambiguity and you mentioned his surname in the previous sentence.
  • Link penalty (but do it the first time, this is the third instance, but I only just noticed).
  • "for UEFA Euro 1980 be" again, not the contemporary name.

That's it. Once we're done, refs and one final read through. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

It was a pleasure to re-read and although I fixed a couple of very minor errors, I find it difficult to find fault with the article now. Hopefully my comments have been useful, despite the unfortunate manner in which other users have reacted to them. Excellent work Kosack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM, your reviews are always welcome. Kosack (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Aza24 - Pass edit

Woah is this article still waiting on a source review? Geez, doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well those were admittedly very thorough references. The only issues I could find was that the first two books use ISBN-10 rather than 13, so please fix those accordingly. (Here is links to those of Davies & Garland as well as Farmer & Peter)

Besides that the sources are all reliable and those that are not published books or from news corporations are citing uncontroversial information. (Scores and such) Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks - Pass edit

Checked 5, 18, 27, 39, 44, 47, 61, 93, 131 - all good Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be checking sources once I've covered the prose. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Oh, I didn't mean to overstep if you were already planning to do the source review, sorry about that. Aza24 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just noting that I'll be doing more than just a spot check on them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, appreciate you getting stuck into the review when I pinged, are you close to wrapping up now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian: I'm unsure whether the source review is complete. If it is not, or if you do not consider that it is, please let me know. Although I am on vacation through September, I consider this FAC to be unfinished business from long before. I am therefore happy to pitch in if needed. As you may know from Leech, I can review sources comprehensively and in short order. Otherwise, I am more than happy to let my sleeping dogs (of source snuffling) lie. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that offer, F&F, but it looks to me that reliability and formatting are reviewed, and there were also spotchecks. This has had a much longer run at FAC that we normally like so subject to my own final checks I'll be aiming to close shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 13 July 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/History_of_the_Wales_national_football_team_(1876–1976)/archive1&oldid=967560360"