Talk:1919 Copa del Rey final

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Spanish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

1919 Copa del Rey final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 27, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed
March 20, 2023	Peer review	Reviewed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 21, 2022.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the lead-up to the 1919 Copa del Rey Final between FC Barcelona and Arenas Club de Getxo, fans broke the fencing twice to watch the sold-out match?

Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Match pictured

... that in the lead-up to the 1919 Copa del Rey Final between FC Barcelona and Arenas Club de Getxo, fans broke the fencing twice to watch the sold-out match? Source: [1] "[...] the fence that surrounds the pitch had been forced open by those who could not conform themselves to not watching the match with the only reason being a 'selling out of the tickets'" (La valla que circunda el campo habia sido forzada dos veces por los que fuera no se avenian a quedarse sin ver el partido, por la unica razon «de haberse agotado los billetes».).
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Streets of New Capenna
- Comment: I'm quite unsure about the wording, hope an improvement can be found.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Ixtal (talk). Self-nominated at 19:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Expanded 12x in the last few days. The hook is interesting; I've swapped the position of a word. AGF on non-English source and translation provided. I get 0% copyvio from Earwig. QPQ done. Ixtal, my only "concern" is that you've added {{citation needed}} tags to text you have written, which begs the question: why? DYK rules require at least one source per paragraph. The final paragraph of "Route to the final" is a bit touch and go on that, but not really a violation of the rules. Though, it is quite contradictory to WP:V. Hoping that this can be resolved before it's promoted, but this isn't really preventing this to appear on the main page. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Styyx! I like adding cn tags to articles I'm working on for multiple reasons. Firstly, even if the work is not complete our readers will see the WIP article, and so I add tags to let them now of information that is still unsourced (even when I know the information is true). Secondly, it helps me keep track of sources I need to find so I don't get blind to the issue later on. Finally, by making myself add these tags as often as required it helps to keep qualitative or opinionated wording at a minimum and encourages faithful adherence to the sources I have found so far.
In the case of this article, the cn tags mostly have to do with noting who scored goals/hat-tricks. The parent article had this information but I found its sourcing somewhat weak so I kept the text in good faith (since I have no reason to expect the information to be wrong) as I complete my work on the child (without the source and with a cn tag).— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx and Ixtal: Unfortunately, cn tags are WP:DISPUTETAGS, which can't be on a DYK article per WP:DYKSG#D6 :l theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, the issues have been fixed. The tags are not there any more. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ixtal :) I'm sorry, I know it's a hassle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1919 Copa del Rey Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

Three paras seems like a lot for five sentences. Can merge into one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the cites in infobox and lede could be in the body instead. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used one in the match section to add more information about attendance, removed the rest. One did not seem RS and the other I can't access nor is used elsewhere in the article.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a few discussions at WT:FOOTY about proper nouns for finals. Should it not be "1919 Copa del Rey final"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that being the consensus, I'd be happy to move the page once the review is finished. Unless moving it now doesn't break anything, in which case I'd be happy to move it now. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonably new. Basically, we follow what the sources say. I suspect "final" is right. You can change whenever. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it semifinal, or semi-final? I know it's hyphenated in BritEng. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both are correct, I tend to use 'semifinal' as the word in Spanish is semifinal. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arenas Club de Getxo is linked twice in the lede with one being spelt different. Barca is also linked twice. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I must have not noticed this when rewording the original lead.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"proved crucial for the victors," puff. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this sentence and added extra-time mention to previous one with a slight reword, curious to see what you think. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that this took place in 1919, but is there no other info? If not, at least could state who the referee was and the attendance Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my lead after 1923 FA Cup final, which did not mention the referee. I don't believe the name of the referee is important enough to merit including in the lead, especially since his performance was unremarkable.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nominator

I've added some sentences to the lead, would appreciate comments on them. On attendance, I found a mention in one of the contemporary sources I was using they estimated at least 7,000 spectators were in attendance and another that estimated at least 10,000 but I'd give more credit to the modern newspaper report than the eye-witness account on this statistic. I also would like to get your thoughts on my updated description of the goals scored by Arenas. Should I also include the ones scored by Barca in the lead?— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

The body starts with oth teams had qualified to the Copa del Rey as champions of their regional leagues - could we maybe get a sentence or two explaining what the tournament is, how you qualify (I see it's all the champions of all the individual leagues, but that's not how it's played now for instance), and what teams are we talking about. The lede and body should be independently readable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By explanation of the tournament, you mean Copa del Rey? I fail to see what additional information needs to be explained about how the tournament works and why it wouldn't be more appropriate for the article on the 1919 Copa del Rey than the final match one.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article itself needs to be readable without clicking onto another article. A very brief message saying what the cup is, and that it was an eight team tournament would suffice. Then, when introducing the teams, a small message saying that teams qualified by being a winner would cover it. If we didn't include information in the way you outlined above, you'd never include info on who they beat to make the final. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second leg was won by Racing 0–2 - I get that we are saying that Racing won the match, and they aren't the team we are interested in, but this reads totally wrong. Either Getxo lost 0-2, or Racing won 2-0. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under the rules at the time, goal difference was not used as a tie-breaker, - probably wise to mention what the aggregate score is, and use that wording (with a link), as goal difference means something slightly different. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to him, none of the goals were valid (the first being called offside by the assistant referee, the second due to a controversial continuation of play after a rough foul by an Arenas player, and the third as result of a controversial handball call) this reads as though the referee's actually disallowed these goals. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does changing "him" to "the captain" fix this or should I rephrase the parenthesis?— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, that's fine, so long as it's a bit more understanding Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the second leg Arenas was much more dominant, demoralizing their captain-less opponents with a 2–0 lead in the first half and handling the heat better in the second to take a 6–1 victory, thus securing a spot in the final - editoralising. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from the following phrases in the source (translations my own) Demoralized in the second half, [the players from Vigo], lacking cohesion and lightness, reached Jauregui multiple times without shooting, noting fatigue on both sides from the afternoon's heat. [...] With the crushing triumph of Arenas, [...] though with Vigo lacking their captain who did not arrive in time for the match, Arenas becomes a finalist. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barcelona's run was simpler - bit of a sweeping statement, not required. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in a packed[12] home stadium - is "packed" a quote, seems odd to mention. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember why I placed the citation next to the word, but "packed" is not a quote. The journalist used two sentences to describe how sold out the stadium is but I guess replacing "packed" by "sold out" is more editorial. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"very bad form and attack" - who said this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The journalist from the source cited at the end of that sentence. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hough Barcelona once again established themselves a stronger team that successfully shut down Real Sociedad's forwards - editoralising. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arenas had been predicted to win - ^{[according to whom?]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed prediction to newspaper El siglo futuro — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fans broke down the stadium's outside fencing twice to try and get in as all tickets had been sold - "fans" is a strong word to people braking things. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was struggling to find a word to mean people that went to watch the match. Not sure if "attendees", which I changed the word to now, is better.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The weather was described as "splendid" - ^{[according to whom?]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed description to journalist — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
were the most hard-working of the Barcelona players but to no avail against the rapid transitional play and defensive solidity of the winners which proved decisive ^{[according to whom?]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed description to journalist — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be quite common in the article, quotes need to be attributed inline. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the game now in overtime, - do they not use "extra time" in Spain? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ibaibarriaga secured the win with one minute and a half left - should probably say he scored a goal, there isn't much here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The referees were seen to perform well and neutrally, in part due to the uncontroversial actions necessitated by the game - what were these actions? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not say. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should omit it if we can't comment on them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The head referee, Julián Ruete, announced his decision to retire from refereeing after the match. - did he give a reason? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find one in the sources. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Not a drama. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tangental, do you think the succession box is really necessary seeings we have a template for each event? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean by succession box. You mean the little table? If so I don't see it as necessary and am open to deleting it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do, sorry, that's the Wiki name for those boxes (you see them a lot in political articles). In sports we changed to using templates for such things, we should never really have both Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, greatly appreciate you wanting to review this article. Just a comment, are you sure your list of nominations is updated? No edits have been made to the page since 2021. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's generated from elsewhere. This is a boiler plate that didn't expect me to not have anything outstanding! I'm planning on nominating some stuff early next month. :). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, makes sense. I guess you're waiting for next round of the WikiCup? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, I haven't been super active through February, just need to clean up a couple and I'll have them up. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I'll start working on it tomorrow once I'm done with a deadline. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, I answered the comments. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ixtal looks like we are pretty much there. I did a couple spot checks, but with it being in a foreign language I had to AGF a bit. I would like a little bit more info on how the tournament is run (per comments above) and also move the article, or start a suitable RM per the consensus at WP:FOOTY. Otherwise, happy to promote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.