Talk:2021 FA Cup final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 11:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make your lives easier and review this one alongside 2020 FA Cup Final. It will take a little longer than the 2016 review, but I plan on getting both done before Friday. Hope this works for you two. Anarchyte (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions - 07:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is significantly shorter than its previous years counterparts. The "Route to the final" section has less words in total than 2020 FA Cup Final and 2019 FA Cup Final (and others) have for a single team. Overall, the article is 4-6k bytes smaller than its predecessors.
The lead doesn't mention the televised viewer count and gives very little information on COVID. I'd expect a short comparison between 2020 and 2021, mentioning that this year was allowed to have spectators or something along those lines.
The opening sentence of the lead suffers from the same problem that I saw in the 2016 FA Cup Final lead. It's got abbreviations in the wrong order. See this edit for ideas.
The lead doesn't mention how the game went except for that Leicester City won 1-0. I'd like to know what happened before and after in brief detail.
Lead doesn't mention the heavy rain listed in the infobox.
The article doesn't have a citation for heavy rain.
The background section doesn't mention if the teams had any lineup changes.
- @Anarchyte: I've made some amendments based upon your review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, The C of E. In regard to the rain, there's now a continuity issue. First half mentions that it began in "in conditions of heavy rain", but then mentions that the "rain began to fall" only "midway through the first half". I was also mistaken, there was a citation for the rain in the prose so I've removed it from the infobox. However, my main concerns still lie with the length of the article, mainly the "Route to the final" and "Post-match" sections, arguably to the point of failing criterion 3a. The Route to the final section is written like a dot point list without the dot points, jumping from one game to the next with no deeper analysis of how the games went. The matches last for 90+ minutes and I'm sure there's more information out there than just who scored the goals. For example, the section for Leicester City should mention something about the fact that this was their first appearance in over fifty years. I understand Background mentions the 1969 match, but the Chelsea section has "reaching their fourth final in five years". I'd change it from "Leicester reached the final after" to "Leicester reached their first FA Cup final in 50 years after". Anarchyte (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte it's about 30% larger now it's been properly expanded. I'm not quite done but I think it's much more in-line with the standards we've come to expect at GAN. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks. I'll run through this over the next day or so. Anarchyte (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte no worries. I'm almost there I think! I've expanded by about 50%, written a proper lead, added some background to the qualification route, included some reaction to the match and the goal. And some other bits and pieces. It's about 50% longer prose-wise than it was a couple of days ago. Take your time, I look forward to your comments now we're ready. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all. This slipped my mind today. I'll review it in full tomorrow. Anarchyte (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte absolutely no need to apologise, I think you've been messed around enough already with this one, take your time! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The match was among events where the return of large crowds was piloted after - The match was among the first football events where the return of large crowds was piloted after
Just an idea, and I know it would deviate from previous years, but it could be better to append the third paragraph to the first simply because COVID was a major player in this and last year's games. I say this because 20,000 spectators isn't a lot. Mentioning the nine million a couple sentences later demonstrates that this wasn't a forgotten game. Waiting until the article explains the match detracts from its importance.

Chelsea

who had been affected by a COVID-19 outbreak at the club - what did this change? It's just hanging there at the moment.

Background

their fourth in the last five seasons - include the one year they missed out on.
They had lost 2020's final to Arsenal. - exclude unless you're going to include all their losses. I think only including their one victory is better.
Chelsea dropped Abraham and brought in Werner and Ziyech - probably ignorance, but how can you lose one player and gain two?

Summary

Still no mention of heavy rain. It mentions the rain starting, but when does it pick up?

First half

Iheanacho tried to beat him - reword.
Werner had a shot deflected out for a corner by Fofana before Vardy's stoppage time header went wide of the Chelsea goal - lots happening here. Split or clarify.

Second half

Azpilicueta was then substituted in the 75th minute after a clash of heads, as well as Jorginho, with Havertz and Hudson-Odoi replacing them. - rearrange.

Post-match

The FA did not punish Leicester players Choudhury and Fofana for parading the flag of Palestine during the post-match celebrations - relevance? Was there public backlash from certain communities for the act? Needs more detail.
It was Rodgers' seventh win in a final in seven attempts as a manager - change to It was Rodgers' seventh final win in seven attempts as a manager. Removes overuse of "in".
He also described Tielemans' goal as "fantastic ... but it's a lucky one of course". - too much discussion on luck. Consider shortening to Despite this, he described Tielemans' goal as "fantastic" or Despite this, he described Tielemans' goal as "fantastic", but lucky.

@The C of E and The Rambling Man: After these are resolved I'm happy to pass this review. Anarchyte (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: I think I've covered most of those, I'd prefer to keep the loss to Arsenal in there because it makes sense to clarify the very recent history in addition to the broader 5 years. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: Understandable. Just add the last time Chelsea failed to come and we're good to go. Anarchyte (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Passed. Anarchyte (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]