Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1920–21 Cardiff City F.C. season/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [1].

1920–21 Cardiff City F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season played by Cardiff City F.C. in the Football League following their move from the Southern Football League in 1920. The side surprised many by not only adapting well to the new division but immediately winning promotion to the top tier of English football, missing out on the title by virtue of goal average. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No images are included in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite true, Buidhe (there's a shirt graphic, and these can cause problems) but true enough to Oppose. Criterion 3 says: "Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions..." and there must be loads of images on Commons that are appropriate. I'd hunt some out. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnbod: There are certainly not loads of images on Commons relevant to the article. The only players with images were uploaded by myself from a postcard (which I'm still in the process of ascertaining a possible author to pass an FAC), apart from Jimmy Gill whose image is probably not correctly licensed anyway. There are no match photos from anywhere near this time and the oldest photo of the ground is from 1956, at which time it looked nothing like it would have in 1920. If you have access to any appropriately licensed images, I'd love to add them in. Kosack (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Straight off I'm seeing one at keystone player Billy Hardy (footballer), plus Jimmy Blair. I don't see you need a "possible author" at this date. After that, if necessary I might settle for teams or grounds they played, or Cardiff in the 1920s, Cardiff Castle, or a muddy football. What is not going to happen is me supporting an article of this sort with no images. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Hardy and Blair pictures are both ones I added from the above postcard and, based on previous FACs, I'd be surprised if they went through without one. Kosack (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Johnbod: With the help of another editor, I've expanded the free use rationale which should be enough to cover the license review. I've added the Hardy and Blair images and an image of George V which is relevant to the text. Kosack (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, thanks. I've struck the Oppose, but I'm not sure if I'll do a full review. If a postcard isn't "published", I don't know what is. If the stand behind the later pic of Ninian Park in the photo of the man with a leek (NP cat on Commons) was in place at the time, that should be added, also maybe the OS plan of the ground. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass added images are reasonably relevant and appear to be in the public domain. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a fair bit; please feel free to revert anything you don't agree with.

  • This is not a source review, but I did notice you're inconsistent about publisher locations -- some cites have them and some don't. It doesn't matter which but I would suggest being consistent unless a location is unavailable.
    Added. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still no location on Grandin, Cardiff City 100 Years of Professional Football, in footnote 43. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need either more in the lead about the Southern League, or cut the mention -- it's not clear what exactly happened unless you already know. I had to read the first section of the article before I understood this.
    Dropped the Southern League from the lead. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen "league winners" used in Wikipedia for winners of divisions below the top tier, and it surprises me. It's a long time since I religiously read football match reports, but I still keep track from the US via the BBC web page, and my recollection is that "league winners" is rarely used in newspaper reports for winners of divisions below the top level. Surely "league winner", to most English football fans before the Premiership started, would mean "winner of the First Division"? I would have thought Cardiff would have been called "Second Division champions". If you have sourcing for this usage I won't object, but it doesn't read naturally to me.
    Dropped. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pattern of paired fixtures in the match results -- consecutive home and away games against the same team -- is something that I've never noticed before, and I think others who are not students of the game's history will be surprised too. Can anything be said about this, perhaps above the "August-December" section? When did this practice stop, and why was it ever implemented in the first place? And why does it only happen for part of the season?
    The fixture lists were organised by Charles Sutcliffe who devised his own system that he used until his death in 1939 and which was then carried on by his son until 1967. His system generally tried to pair teams together, but obviously changes were made depending on potential clashes (two teams from the same city being home on the same day for example) and the longer it was used, the more variation was introduced. A brief explanation can be found here. I've tried to work this into the first paragraph at the first use of reverse fixture to hopefully explain this better. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting; I should have guessed it was something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it usual to refer to Port Vale as just "Vale"? I haven't seen that before but if it's a known usage that's fine.
    I have heard it used but probably not widely, so I've added the full name to avoid any potential confusion. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He missed only one senior match for the side, the club's Welsh Cup defeat. This is explicitly in the lead but only implied in the body; I think it could be made explicit in the body too.
    Added. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict between the Welsh Cup match and league match is surprising to a modern reader. You may not have anything in the sources that addresses this, but if you can source it, a footnote saying when scheduling conflicts were eliminated would be interesting to note.
    As far as I can tell, this was a one-off as the Welsh Cup never clashed with a league fixture again and matches are generally moved with little to no hassle. I can't find any explanation as to why this match wasn't moved, perhaps the Football Association of Wales, which governs the Welsh Cup, tried to flex their muscle over the importance of the competition and it backfired. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks close; just a few minor issues above, a couple of which you may not be able to do anything about if there are no sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review and copyedit. I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good, though there's one more location to add to a citation. I just noticed that you say Cardiff keep seven consecutive clean sheets in the FA Cup, but it looks like it was only six? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Fixed those two issues. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

[edit]

I'm happy to review.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me doing this piecemeal, but here's a bit more:

I'll look at the rest tonight. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And onwards we go ...

  • Goal average. I would like to see a little explanation. I'm not sure linking is enough. It's not in use anymore so I think it's okay to add a few words about it, and perhaps even add that it is no longer in use in English football.
    Added a basic explanation. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for second place on 38 points --> maybe add who was leading at the time and with how many points
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the match was marred by a broken leg suffered by Barnett that ended his season --> I'm not a native speaker so I may be wrong but would "although the match was marred by Barnett breaking his leg, ending his season" be better?
    The double use of -ing seems to read a little jarringly to me. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a native speaker who suggested "although the match was marred by Barnett breaking his leg, which ended his season"
  • as Cardiff won six --> consecutive sentences using "as" construction
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bristol City were four points behind the pair meaning --> I would like to see a comma after pair, but I've learned that some people prefer to avoid them as much as possible. (I did enjoy reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • needed a point from their remaining two fixtures --> is it worth adding a footnote explaining that in those days a victory was 2 points?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the league results table, may I propose inserting a Round column?
    In terms of league matches, I'm not sure of the benefit of a round column, given that the round is only for numerical order which they are sorted into anyway. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And both 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season and 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season have colourcoded the table. Should their format be followed? I can see why the Ipswich table has to use colour coding because how on earth can I decide if their away game against Brighton was a win or a defeat? It says 0–1. It shouldn't make the user think. I like the Arsenal table best. It uses the common "Middlesbrough 0–4 Arsenal" format.
    A discussion at WP:FOOTBALL fairly recently ascertained that the table format, like the one here, is generally the better option as it's more inline with the requirements of WP:ACCESS compared to the format used in the Arsenal article. In regards to colour, I've tended to avoid it as I'm not sure it adds much other than for the sake of it, but then I'm partially colourblind so I don't see much of the difference anyway! Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find the discussion - I didn't look very long :). I can understand the accessibility argument but I am sure there has to be a better way than making users think. Do you happen to have a link to the discussion? Sorry, too lazy to look any longer myself.
    It's mixed in with information on prose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 133#2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season formatting. Comments by Stevie Fae and Struway2 near the end sum it up best probably. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

Tomorrow seems like a fine day to conclude the review with a source spotcheck. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources:

  • I couldn't find it in MOS but I believe I was told at FAC once to keep capitalisation consistent within the list of references, so possibly change the capitalisation from the original. I always use Camel Case for Book Titles, but in Newspaper article titles you won't see me using many capitals. I just checked some of your earlier FAs and it seems that what you have here is perfectly fine.
    Generally I just copy and paste the title from the source. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opening Day History:Starting With Success" --> the article title appears to have a | instead of a colon. In any case, a space is probably needed between the symbol and Starting
    Ah I remember adding this one, the line makes the template malfunction and I'm not sure how to fix that. I've added the space, is there a solution for the line | problem? Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Check the source of this line to see how I made this |
  • Also add a space in "City Decades:The Triumphant Twenties"
    Added. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randomly picked refs all check out: #18, #29, #30, #51, #52, #55, #57, #59, #60. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article. I give my Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

I'll save this article in a way that goal average never could... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background

  • and becoming a professional football club ===>>> and to become a professional football club
    I'm a bit unsure of this one as it seems to imply that the change was required to join the league, which it wasn't. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leeds United, looking to replace Leeds City who had dropped out of the Football League after eight matches the previous year, led the ballot with 31 votes ===>>> Leeds United – looking to replace Leeds City, a team that had dropped out of the Football League after eight matches the previous year – led the ballot with 31 votes (the "who" clause doesn't fit; too many clauses)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly at Portsmouth who had ended the season as champions ===>>> particularly at Portsmouth, the reigning league champions. (the "who" clause doesn't fit, or maybe just add a comma before "who" this time?)
    The use of reigning concerns me that it may be confused with other years, which is why I went for the above. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • , but the emergence of Fred Keenor ===>>> ; however, the emergence of Fred Keenor
  • The alterations would stretch into the season but ===>>> Although the alterations would stretch into the season, but

August to December

January to May

Cup matches

  • on 8 January 1921 with Cardiff causing ===>>> on 8 January 1921. Cardiff caused
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • after a goal from Gill. ===>>> on a goal from Gill.
    I've never seen the phrase "on a goal" used in BritEng I believe? Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Division side Chelsea ===>>> First Division side Chelsea,
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • having been taken to two replays ===>>> , having been taken to two replays
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A crowd of 50,000 attended the match at Ninian Park. <<<=== End the sentence here.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as Cardiff took an early lead through Cashmore's second goal in the competition.[10] Cardiff proceeded ===>>> After Cardiff took an early lead through Cashmore's second goal in the competition,[10] Cardiff proceeded (combine the two sentences)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff's victory over Chelsea resulted in the side becoming the first Welsh team ever to reach the semi-final stage in the competition's history. <<<=== Just to check, so they were not the first Welsh team to make the fourth round and/or quarter-final stage?
    I'm not really sure right now, most of the references use that marker. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolves were adjudged to have been the stronger of the two sides with Evans being named as Cardiff's most impressive attacking player, although the side's defence was praised after recording their sixth consecutive clean sheet in the competition. <<<=== Re-organise this sentence and maybe split. The clauses don't work together.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point but was breached after just 12 minutes. ===>>> Although Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point, they were breached after just 12 minutes.
  • which was converted by Keenor ===>>> that was converted by Keenor
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a brief upsurge in performance as the side looked for an equaliser, but a number of long shots were defended by Wolves who added a third goal soon after and ended the winners as the match finished 3–1. <<<=== Split this sentence in two.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • against Pontypridd, but the ===>>> against Pontypridd; however, the (and also split the sentence in two at "in the third round;" before this part)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Player details

  • 7 FA Cup matches; The only <<<=== the semicolon is fine, but the capitalization.
  • scoring 19 ===>>> add "goals" or "times"
  • scoring 12 ===>>> add "goals" or "times"
    All Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • Okay.

Overall

  • There is a bunch of instances where you use "but" in the middle of the sentence where it would make more sense to use "Although" at the beginning of the sentence. I believe I marked all of them above. (I see a bunch of these were added by Mike Christie who was against beginning sentences with "However". Although that's a fair concern, I don't think putting "but"s into the middles of sentences is grammatically correct either.)
  • The article looks comprehensive and well-structured. The above points are mainly minor grammatical issues.

Will support once the above points are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But vs. Although

Hi, Sportsfan77777; I saw you mentioned me re "but" in the middle of a sentence. It's fine to use "but" in the middle of a sentence (google "but in middle of sentence" and you'll get lots of grammar guides), but a comma is often recommended before the "but" (as in this sentence!). You actually do this yourself in your comments above -- It's fine to use 42000 in the infobox, but it might be worth noting.... Using "although" at the beginning of a sentence isn't wrong, but it can change the meaning. For example you suggest above Although Pagnam scored on his debut as Cardiff defeated Barnsley 3–2, suffered consecutive defeats for the first time -- this makes no sense as written, and even if fixed, the meaning is wrong -- the "but" here refers to the contrast between Cardiff's defeat of Barnsley and their subsequent consecutive defeats. Re "however", it's a useful word but it can get overused, and it's stronger than "but" or "though" so I tend to weaken it while copyediting unless I see a strong reason not to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mike Christie, thanks for the reply! I'm not trying to be overly grammatically correct in my wording of the comments, only in the suggestions. Not saying this is the best source, but they say "Although is slightly more formal, and is preferred if you want to stress that both halves of your statement may be true. But is used when you wish to stress contradiction between the halves of the statement.". For example, if a sentence said: "Cardiff won the match, but lost their best player", that would be fine because the second clause negates the first. But if it had said: "Cardiff won the match, but lost their next match", that does not make sense because the second clause does not negate the first; it is just separate. They should really be written as two separate clauses. That said, some of the suggestions above were also or instead due to tense issues or wording issues. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I'm at work so can't read in detail but will take a look, probably this evening. Kosack, I trust your judgement if you want to go ahead and make whatever changes you think are necessary based on Sportsfan77777's comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through your detailed notes below, and I think your usage is fine; I differ from you on exactly when "but" is acceptable but some variation isn't a problem. I'll leave this for Kosack to make their own judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fair! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case

  • The pair, alongside Billy Hardy, had formed part of the "holy three", as they were known by fans in the Southern League, but the emergence of Fred Keenor hastened their departure.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "The pair, alongside Billy Hardy, had formed part of the "holy three", as they were known by fans in the Southern League, but their departure was hastened by the emergence of Fred Keenor." I think that's a more correct use of "but", but then the second part is in passive voice, which I don't like. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alterations would stretch into the season but the ground would have an initial capacity of 35,000 for the start of the campaign.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "The alterations would stretch into the season but they did not stop the ground from reaching an initial capacity of 35,000 for the start of the campaign." I would be fine with that, just as much as my "although" suggestion above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff defeated their Severnside rivals 1–0 with Barnett scoring the only goal,[10] but a loss to Stoke on 5 February saw Cardiff drop to third place.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "Cardiff defeated their Severnside rivals 1–0 with Barnett scoring the only goal,[10] but still fell to third place after their next match, a loss to Stoke on 5 February." I don't think the current way it's written has parallelism. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pagnam scored on his debut as Cardiff defeated Barnsley 3–2 but suffered consecutive defeats for the first time during the campaign, losing 2–0 against Rotherham County and 2–1 against Port Vale in their next two fixtures.
I'll revise my above suggestion to be: "Although Pagnam scored on his debut, a 3–2 victory over Barnsley, Cardiff suffered consecutive defeats for the first time during the campaign in their next two fixtures, losing 2–0 against Rotherham County and 2–1 against Port Vale." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "but" works too well here with there being two clauses in "Pagnam scored on his debut as Cardiff defeated Barnsley 3–2" already. The only way the rest of the sentence could negate the first and justify the use of "but" would be to tie the next two fixtures to Pagnam as well (i.e. something like "Pagnam scored on his debut, a 3–2 victory over Barnsley, but could not prevent Cardiff from losing their next two fixtures 2–0 against Rotherham County and 2–1 against Port Vale, the first time they suffered consecutive defeats during the campaign"). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point but was breached after just 12 minutes.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point, but gave up their first after just 12 minutes." Again, to keep parallelism. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for the review, I've addressed the majority of the points above with a few replies as well. I've left the although/but issues for now while the discussion continues. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: I've incorporated the changes noted above following the discussion. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting! I made a few minor copyedits, check if those make sense. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Citation style appears consistent, especially with repeated citations to The Times.
  • Most material is sourced to books or newspaper articles from the time, which seems appropriate.
  • The Times sources on the Gale site are marked as needing a subscription, but I accessed them without signing up for anything. Is that correct? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically no, I've been granted access via the WP:LIBRARY so they used to be subscription only and trying to access the archive from a Web search still requests a login. I'm assuming GALE have opened up somewhat or provide access to cited sections now? Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC Sport is the only source that is linked (in [21]). I'd recommend unlinking it to keep consistency, unless there is a reason? The author is also missing for this one.
    Unlinked and added author. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times is the only one with a specified location (London). That may be fine, but is there a reason for that? (such as, to avoid confusion with other newspapers with the same name?)
    Removed. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • In [56], "He would go on to become Cardiff's all-time leading goalscorer with 128 goals in all competitions", I see the 128 goals mentioned in the article, but not that that made him the all-time leading goalscorer.
    Added a further source. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [5], the title could include the subtitle (Changes and Prospects).
  • The following sources support the associated statements: [5] (teams leaving), [18] (underdogs), [36] (table position and number of games), [49] (Chelsea difficulties), [51] (good defensive line, and attendance), [54] (attendance and money)

First ever source review. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Nearly four weeks in and only one support. I shall add it to Urgents, but this nomination needs further reviews very soon if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:FOOTBALL to try and garner some attention too. Kosack (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this still needs a source review? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Yeah, I've added it to the source review requests. Hopefully someone has time over the holiday period. Kosack (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - I've taken the liberty of assuming that the few remaining source formatting nitpicks will be okay'd by Sportsfan - they did not seem to be huge enough to worry about ... since Kosack has said they did them. If Sportsfan doesn't think they are perfectly correct, I AGF on both of them being able to get it fixed on the talk page even after the nomination is promoted. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1920–21_Cardiff_City_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=997735178"