Talk:1900 FA Cup final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^talk 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Harrias. Glad to help with any questions. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Footballhistory.org does not meet our requirements as a reliable source; the cited page actually lists Wikipedia as a source.

It has been used in other articles so I must have assumed it was okay. You're right – it does cite WP! Anyway, I've replaced with the FA's own cup finals page. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "English Football League Tables" a reliable source?

Maybe not. I've used RSSSF instead as that is present in other GAs although it too is essentially just a statistical site. I don't have any book sources which print early league tables. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "fa-cupfinals.co.uk" a reliable source?

This one is present in numerous articles and I think it's affiliated to the FA. If not, then the Bury site confirms the attendance figure. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "Historical Football Kits" a reliable source?

Also present in numerous articles but I checked one cup final article (1978) at FA which doesn't carry any kit citation so I've removed it from this one. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more citation details available for ref #15? I would expect at least an article title and page number for a news source, in addition to the publication and the date.

No, this must have been a copy-and-paste error. The date was wrong, for one thing. Removed. The book source covers the post-match info about Southampton. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The license template for File:CrystalPalace1905.jpg requires that "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Such a description is not present.

Again, this image is present in other cup final articles. Best to remove it. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review to follow. Harrias ^talk 12:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I started a new job last week, and I didn't quite anticipate how much it would take out of me. I'm only managing to get dribs and drabs done at the moment. This might slip to the weekend, though I'll do what I can before. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush, Harrias, take your time. Hope all is going well for you at work – must be very difficult starting a new job at a time like this. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Ref #1 doesn't cover "known officially as The Football Association Challenge Cup, is an annual knockout association football competition in men's domestic English football. Organised by and named after The Football Association (The FA)", this will need an additional citation.

Mike Collett seems to cover this but I've reworded and relinked slightly too.

Ref #3 claims to be "England 1899–1900", but it actually links to the 1967–68 season.

Season amended.

Ref #6 does not support the claim that "Southampton had the same arrangement", nor the length of Arnfield's tenure as secretary.

The source confirms that he was the club secretary but I don't recall where I found the dates so I've removed them.

Ref #6 does include Arnfield as secretary, but I don't see where it confirms it was the same arrangement as Bury (ie. a "three-man committee" selecting the team.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to say just that he was in charge on match days. The later piece about their trip to Buxton does strongly imply that he took charge of training too and may have been a team manager, but that isn't confirmed and he may just have been the spokesman. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NUM, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc should be written out: first, second, third. This applies in the main prose and the tables on the right.

Done.

"en route" doesn't need to be in italics.

Done.

I can't see that ref #7 supports "struggling Burnley, who were relegated at the end of the 1899–1900 league season".

Removed "struggling" and provided extra reference for the league table.

"The replay at Gigg Lane was watched by a crowd of just 4,480." 4,480 or 4,438? The source provided gives both.

One of them must be a typo, probably in the results list as the other is a more precise figure. I've called it an estimated figure of over 4,400.

"..a thrilling match.." This opinion needs inline attribution.

It is actually called a "thriller" so I've put that and added the citation there too.

Sure, but it still needs inline attribution, per WP:INTEXT. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, that was me. I read intext as inline. I decided on balance to remove the "thriller" comment as the match speaks for itself. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"seized the opportunity" again, according to who?

Same source as the next sentence so I've added it to this one for the quote.

Still needs inline attribution, per WP:INTEXT. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As above and, again, I removed the quote. In this case, I think it sounded like something in a tabloid and it was stating the obvious in that of course the guy made the most of his opportunity. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"..which has been described as "three epic confrontations"." By who?

Juson & Bull.

"..watched a "disappointing" goalless draw." Who described it as disappointing?

Removed the word – most goalless draws are, ha!

"..saw Alf Milward at his "electrifying best"." According to who?

Reworded.

"..which put the Saints through.." Who are "the Saints"? That nickname has not been introduced.

Reworded.

"..had officiated at the Southampton v Newcastle game.." Try to avoid using "v" in prose like this: maybe something like "had officiated at game between Southampton and Newcastle.."

Reworded.

"..were demolished in the first half.." In this context, "demolished" is not encyclopaedic language.

Yes, "demolished" is okay in a tabloid report but not here. Reduced sentence to: "The first half was dominated throughout by Bury".

"..by the Shakers." Who are "the Shakers"? That nickname has not been introduced.

Replaced with Bury.

"..Robinson then made "a couple of excellent saves"." According to who?

Reworded.

"..by hitting a "lightning" shot, following a "fine pass" from Wood.." Whose opinions are these?

Reworded.

"..did make "more of a fight of things" in the second period.." According to who?

Revised whole of second half paragraph.

"..ten minutes from time." This phrasing might not be accessible to a layperson.

Revised whole of second half paragraph.

"..had made a fine save.." Who judged it to be a "fine save"?

Revised whole of second half paragraph.

"..who shot "low and hard" past Robinson to complete a "football lesson" for the Southampton players." Attribute the quotes.

Revised whole of second half paragraph.

The match rules and notes need references.

Added some footnotes for additional information here as I think they will be useful, plus citations.

Sorry for the delay; I've read through the whole prose and left my thoughts above. The main issues are that the majority of quotes and opinions are not attributed in the prose (see WP:INTEXT) and that some of the colour commentary provided in the Background and Route to the final sections is not thoroughly sourced. Overall though, it is a decent article, and hopefully with some a few fixes to these points, it should be ready for Good article status. I'll stick it on hold for the moment. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about time, Harrias. You have a lot on your plate at present. It's a very thorough review and, on balance, I think I perhaps rushed the expansion of this one. I've made adjustments as noted above under each point. Could you please look it over again when time allows and let me know if there is anything else needing attention. Thanks very much indeed for doing the review which has really helped improvement of the article. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of replies above. I do have a copy of The Times report for the match if you're interested, but you'd need to email me (and therefore reveal your email address) so I can send it as an attachment. I see you don't have emails enabled, so it is up to you. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, Harrias. I can access The Times archive so I've pulled out a few comments and added them to the article. Typically of the time, football was quite low key within general sports coverage and, as far as this paper was concerned, its priority was the presence of two "noble lords". Still, some of the comments are useful.

E-mail on WP is an interesting point. I prefer not to enable because of the free access here, although I would create a dedicated address if I should ever become a sysop. I was an IP editor for fourteen years before I registered as a member but, even so, my view has always been that editing should be limited to those who register by e-mail address, as is the de facto standard on the internet. I believe everyone should be able to read WP but e-mail address registration would cut vandalism by 99% overnight. The problem, of course, is that the vast majority of IP editors provide very good input and many, perhaps most, of them would not register.

Anyway, thank you again for a very through review. Could you please look at the latest changes, especially what I've taken from The Times. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes made, and will pass this now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much. The review has been a great help and the article has improved considerably as a result. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]