Jump to content

Talk:Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2020Good article nomineeListed
September 1, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 25, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after his side defeated Leeds United in the FA Cup, Cardiff City chairman Sam Hammam had two BBC reporters forcibly removed and had an altercation with the opposing manager?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I saw this in the queue, got interested and read the whole thing. I shouldn't really review the most recent nomination, but there we go! Full review to follow shortly. Harrias talk 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is basically of GA quality: I could make a couple of minor copy-edits and pass this without feeling at all guilty. The points I'm making are all pretty minor, and probably more FA-level issues, rather than ones necessary for GA.

Referencing
  • Why do you list "FourFourTwo" as a publisher, not a work: surely given that it is part of the "Future plc" publishing group, it should be the latter?
  • RTE should be RTÉ.
  • Provide an author link to Jonathan Liew.
  • Should "Leeds Live" and "Teesside Live" be treated in the same way as WalesOnline? Ie, as a work with a publisher. (Also, spelling correction needed for "Teesside Live".)
  • In ref #29, provide an author link to Henry Winter, and change to The Daily Telegraph to match our article and previous reference.
  • Ref #33, "Hammam attacks 'aggressive' O'leary" The "L" in O'Leary needs capitalising.
  • Ref #35, another author link.
  • Ideally, I'd like to see the works linked, but no biggie.
    Addressed all of the points in this section. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • The image is appropriately licensed and captioned.
  • I'm not keen on the way that the image forces the match details template down, leaving blank space. Maybe just more the image further up in the summary section?
    One of the downsides of mobile editing is that pages appear rather differently than they would on a computer screen. I've moved it further up, let me know if that doesn't fix the issue. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous
Prose
  • Per MOS:CURRENCY, "million" should be spelt out on first use; "..first signing midfielder Graham Kavanagh from Stoke City for £1m before signing.." The MOS also says "and (optionally) abbreviated M or bn (both unspaced) thereafter". Which should suggest it should be "..for a further £1.75 M." But that looks weird to me. - Done
  • Link or explain "non-league".
  • "..with Welsh Rugby Union chairman Glanmor Griffiths making.." Avoid noun plus -ing. - Done
  • "Chairman Hammam had.." Avoid giving Hammam a false title here. - Done
  • "Cardiff manager Cork was.." Same again. - Done
  • "Fullback Dean Gordon had.." And again. (There are more after this in the match summary, but I'm not going to keep noting them.)
    Done that one and I think I took care of anymore. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..with Frazer Richardson replacing.." Avoid noun plus -ing. - Done
  • "Prior to the game, John Charles, who played for both sides during his career was presented.." Add another comma after "career". - Done
  • "..with Cardiff quickly attacking.." and shortly after "..with Robert Earnshaw making.." Avoid noun plus -ing. - Done
  • "One match report commented that the pair "barely acknowledged each other" during the rest of the game.." Whose match report? Tell us inline.
    The Telegraph report itself only lists a match report and doesn't name the actual writer. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..fouled Andy Legg 22-yards from.." No need for the hyphenation here. - Done
  • "..passed the stand containingeeds' supporters.." Typo. - Done
  • "The Daily Telegraph described the result as "one of the greatest upsets in FA Cup history".." Consider name checking Henry Winter inline here. - Done
  • "They lost their next match 2–1 to Peterborough United in the Second Division six days later before being eliminated from the FA Cup in the fourth round at the end January following a 3–1 defeat to Tranmere Rovers." This needs some commas to break it up. - Done
  • "Leeds form also slumped.." Add the possessive apostrophe; "Leeds' form.." - Done
  • "..which was extended to five due after he received his.." Too many words here. - Done

There you go. Lots of little points, but as I say, overall a really nice article, well done. Harrias talk 13:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for the review. I've had this on my radar for a while (one of those, "I was there!" moments) and finally got around to writing it. I think I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know if you find anything else. Kosack (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, I'm happy to pass this now. Harrias talk 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Created within seven days of nomination and meets the length guidelines. QPQ has been done. Article is neutral, reliably sourced and has a 43.2 per cent chance of a copyright violation. This is mainly due to the use of quotes which are correctly attributed to the right person. Hook is fascinating, short and neutral. GTG MWright96 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It seems to me that there is a pretty clear consensus against moving the article at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Score is a disfavored, unhelpful disambiguator for football/soccer matches, because scores are very common. For example, Cardiff City beat Leeds United 2–1 in 2015 [1], in 2012 [2] , and probably many more times. More generally, retrospectives in reliable sources won't use the score alone to remind readers which match they're talking about unless the score is very infamous, and even when it is infamous, note that we have Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) not 7-1. The date, the competition, or both are much better to use. SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an additional comment: it's possible that for some of the articles with existing disambiguation, e.g. Burnley F.C. 0–1 Lincoln City F.C. (2017), that maybe that really was the only time the score was 0-1 in 2017. But readers who aren't walking sports encyclopedias won't necessarily know this for sure, so the competition or a more specific date than just the year is still better. Also, I recognize that for many of these teams, they played each other multiple times over the course of the Cup, but that's okay; just use the date at worst (as I suggested for the Tottenham Hotspur tiebreaker above), or use a hatnote for the unlikely chance someone is interested in a non-notable game without an article. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It is rather unfathomable that a common outcome like "2-1" would disambiguate anything, and it seems more likely that a reader searching for an article would remember a game with a specific year. If something more precise is required, I would go with month and year before score and year. BD2412 T 00:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creator of the Cardiff page, I'd have no issue with adding a further disambiguation to the article title(s). Personally, unless the same scoreline was recorded in the same year, I would favour the scoreline supported by the year, e.g. Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002). All but one of the examples listed here are FA Cup shock defeats caused by teams from lower divisions beating higher ranked teams, people searching for these are far more likely to know the score and year rather than adding the months or competition year of the game. Kosack (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see a need for this because those scores on their own are fairly unique with the year. If there was a repeat score for a separate article on a different year, then yes we should distinguish the competition but I do not see a need to change them as they are at the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the new location of the second one should be Burnley F.C. v Lincoln City F.C. (2016–17 FA Cup), not as shown -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for consistency, either the article titles should all include the F.C. part of each team's name or none should. Currently there is no consistency either among the existing titles or the proposed new ones..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no opinion on this matter; the current RM merely honors the current form of the article titles as far as "F. C." vs. no F. C. . Feel free to either start a discussion at the Wikiproject or just outright move them on this if you want. This RM is intended to focus mostly just on the score vs. date/competition aspect. Also, I edited the Burnley v Lincoln City dash to your preferred version. SnowFire (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - someone would need to show me a match that had that scoreline in that year. Surely the year is plenty to disambig. The Hereford United v Newcastle United (1971–72 FA Cup) idea is specifically bad, because there were two such matches in that match (the first ending 2-2), and the article itself is actually specifically about the second result. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the Hereford United match: So have a hatnote that clarifies where to find the other game. I'd also be fine with moving that article to the specific date it was played on, similar to the Tottenham Hotspur article. SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The notable part of most of these games is the score. As mentioned above, most are shock defeats, and therefore the average reader looking for the game would more likely remember the score. Also, regarding the comment above about even Germany's infamous 7-1 drubbing of Brazil, personally I think that too should be by score (but it at least has "7-1" redirect to it), and also will mention for example Australia 31–0 American Samoa and Tonga 0–22 Australia. --SuperJew (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not nominate those articles as those are more borderline cases, the exception that proves the rule. The issue is when the score is something like 2-1, not 22-0. World Cup matches don't include the score in the article title by default (see Category:FIFA World Cup matches) so it's a bit slanted to pick the two exceptions that do. Anyway, I disagree that the "notable" thing is the score: we have 2018 FA Cup Final with only the competition, no score in the title, so clearly score is not a mandatory part of the article title. Scores are very rarely part of the title in other sports, for whatever it's worth. We don't force readers to memorize scores, even quirky scores (1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game), and these aren't quirky scores.
    • The "average reader" will get to these articles by Google, but if they don't, then they're probably using search box suggestions. It's much cleaner to be able to type out Team A v (...) and see what pops up then to have to guess a score. SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see the logic there I'm afraid. People would only be typing Team A vs Team B if they knew a notable match had taken place in the first place, so I think it's a reach to assume they wouldn't know the score of said match. Taking the Wrexham game as an example, I know that Wrexham beat Arsenal 2–1, I've seen replays of it every year, but I couldn't tell you what year it was (I tried guessing and was out by three years). The cup final articles are different because we have an actual name for the match, whereas these have no real title. Kosack (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SnowFire: FA Cup Finals are different. They are notable because of their status as a final of a competition. The games listed here are notable as being shock results. --SuperJew (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Club matches are different from international matches. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above, completely unnecessary disambiguation, GiantSnowman 07:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, fine, let's say it's completely unnecessary. If these matches are really so epicly memorable without need for mentioning any disambiguation, then why not move them to just Team A v Team B? If not, then some form of disambiguation is necessary, and the question is whether the weak score disambiguation should be used, or else competition / date. SnowFire (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I oppose the removal of the score as doing so would be unhelpful, but adding "FA Cup" could be worthwhile for some such as Tottenham-Man City and Cardiff-Leeds due to them being in the same league at the time or soon after. The score and the year usually make it quite clear which match the article is about and the scores are quite rare if not unique between the teams listed; looking at the head-to-head matches on soccerbase.com it seems Norwich 0-1 Luton had happened three times before (in 1921, 1959, 1996), and there has since been a Newcastle 0-1 Palace (in 2019). Also it seems more common for the teams to face each other in the FA cup than it is for these particular results to occur, and in some cases the only times the teams have met is in FA cup, so using the competition for disambiguation instead of the score would not be an improvement. Cardiff 2-1 Leeds appears to be a quite common result and needs a year adding as this has happened seven times in all competitions - it was their eighth meeting in the FA cup. EdwardUK (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (in principle) as an improvement, if not ideal. Disambiguation by competition seems like common sense, and inline with WP:COMMONNAME as sources refer to the competition & result; the scores are very much secondary, generally unremarkable (1-0, 2-1, etc.) and not particularly helpful. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, as stated above, sometimes these teams met multiple times in the same tournament...score and year would perhaps be best. GiantSnowman 16:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways of resolving such issues; year, competition, round, replay, etc. all work for disambiguation (or a combination when necessary) – the score almost always does not. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated above, I'm quite happy to add a further disambiguation for the title and, as this article is currently at FAC, I'd hope to move this along somewhat. My personal preference would be the year added to the current wording, as the score and year would surely prove sufficient for the majority of these fixtures. If there are further clashes, these can be sorted on a case-by-case basis. Kosack (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I would agree with the score and year being sufficient, though Cardiff–Leeds is one of the two exceptions which may need further disambiguation (as noted in my previous comment). In almost all cases these two identifiers would be suitable for the same reason that these matches are significant. These games are upsets so it is the score that makes the match notable and the gap between the teams makes it unlikely that they will have played any other matches in the same year (with the exception of replays, in which case the score and the order of the teams would be different). EdwardUK (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cardiff_City_F.C._2–1_Leeds_United_F.C._(2002)&oldid=1200636878"