Talk:1974 FA Charity Shield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Unpipe the football link so it says "Association football" for our American and Australian friends. Done.
You can remove the mention of Saturday from the lead and just say the date. Done.
I'd change the line "The game was the first in which Bob Paisley managed Liverpool and the first in which Brian Clough managed Leeds." to make it a little less repetitive. Perhaps "The game was the first in which Bob Paisley and Brian Clough managed Liverpool and Leeds respectively". Agreed and done.
Background and pre-match: "The 1974 match was the first to be played at Wembley Stadium, the Football Association trying to revive the status of the match as a traditional season curtain-raiser by moving it to the country's showpiece venue, having it televised live for the first time ever and insisting on the champions and cup winners both taking part (for the first time since 1970)." needs a bit of a rejig. Might I suggest "The 1974 match was the first Charity Shield game to be played at Wembley Stadium as the Football Association tried to revive the status of the match as a traditional season curtain-raiser by moving it to the country's showpiece venue. Furthermore, it was televised live for the first time ever and the FA insisted on the champions and cup winners both taking part for the first time since 1970." It's not a massive difference, it just breaks it up a little. You might also want to consider placing (FA) after the first mention of Football Association and then only referring to them as the FA afterwards. Done.
"for the past decade" change to "over the decade prior" as that way you avoid a confusion of present and past tense. Done.
"but it is doubtful if there was ever an angrier encounter than the 1974 Charity Shield" is really quite similar to "but it is doubtful whether there had ever been an angrier encounter than there was that day" at the source. I would suggest that you quote it instead. Done.
I'd re-order the final three paragraphs so that they were in date order. Done.
Match: "John Toshack (injured) being replaced by Phil Boersma" I'd change this to eliminate the brackets to "John Toshack was unavailable due to injury and was replaced by Phil Boersma". Done.
Prefix the first mention of Allan Clarke as "Leeds striker Allan Clarke", then the reader knows which teams the rest of the players in the paragraph are on because of their actions. You've already done very similar things in the other two paragraphs describing the match and it just makes it easier to follow. Done.
Post-match: The mirror the final paragraph about Clough, I'd expand it by adding a brief couple of lines about Paisley's legacy at Liverpool. Done. The information and citations are from Bob Paisley.
Cite #6: Just BBC Sport, not BBC Sport Online. Done.
Cite #7: Is this a reliable source? Has there been any indication of endorsement from Leeds United officially? Or has it been pointed at by the media as a source? You've got it listed as coming from Leeds United itself, but it's actually mightyleeds.co.uk, a fan site. I thought it was an LUFC site but I think I was taken in by their club badge being all over it. It is cited by other articles so I'm assuming it's okay to use but please let me know if you're unsure and we can check further. I've found it referenced in Don Revie which is a GA and it's in other articles like Leeds United F.C. itself (B-class) which have not been officially rated.
Cite #17: This is probably the biggest issue. Policy in Wikipedia:Video links says that you can't link to it. However, you technically can still use it, you just can't reference that it is on YouTube. So you'll need to replace the cite with one that has the original broadcast information. So original channel etc, and then use that instead without a url. Alternatively, use British newspaper reports of the match if you have access to any archives (but then you'll have to do some re-writing since I doubt everything will be included exactly as described). Ah, I didn't know we can't cite YouTube. Fortunately, there is no doubt that the footage was originally part of the live BBC Sport transmission and it was edited by ESPN into one of their highlights programmes. I've reworded the citation so could you please check and edit the wording if necessary. Thanks for this one as it's a learning point for me.
Cite #18: Pretty much the same query as #7. Sometimes these fan sites are accepted as reliable sources for Wiki, but I have to ask as I don't know enough about them individually. I knew this one to be a fansite and it has been cited elsewhere, such as Bill Shankly and History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959) which are GA/FA rated.
Cite #20: In the citation code, change "publisher" to "via". Done, but please check to make sure what I've done is what you're asking.
Image: The infobox image is great - really lucky to have a free use image of the game itself. However, there are images of Clough, Bremner and Keegan freely available if you wanted to add them to break up some of the text. You don't have to, but they're there if you want to. Images of Brian and Billy are good but I don't like the one of Kevin as he's years older. I found one instead of Tommy Smith which captures his "Anfield Iron" persona very well.

That's the lot. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look at it. Placing it on hold for the standard seven days, let me know before then if you need more time. Miyagawa (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: Hi again. Thank you very much for doing the review so promptly and thoroughly. I think I've addressed all the points but if you could just check everything, especially the citation ones, and let me know if anything else is needed, I'll be happy to try and help. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boca Jóvenes: Great, new images are good, and the fan sites are fine - happier to go with the opinions of smarter people than myself in other GA/FA reviews! :) Only thing outstanding, is that Cite #25 needs to add the date from the article and the source, and Cite #26 just the source. Then I'll be happy to promote to GA. Miyagawa (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: Ah, I should have noticed those. Can you please check again that they are okay now? Anything else you need, just give me a ping. Thanks once again for all your help. This has been a very useful exercise for me and I'm learning a lot of things here. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 09:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Happy to promote to GA on that basis. I remember doing a couple of matches as early Good Articles, and I still do them on occasion (I did the Cardiff City FA Cup Final/Charity Shield games earlier this year). Anyway, good job on this one - proper Damned United stuff. Miyagawa (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]