Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Football League First Division play-off Final/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 January 2021 [1].

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, another candidate on the most valuable single football match on the planet. Worth a read, used an official video to enhance the game summary, which includes an almighty BANG when Don Hutchison falls from a great height and dislocates his shoulder. Hopefully it's all up to scratch having just passed WP:GAN thanks to a review from Casliber. As ever I'll endeavour to get to any comments and queries on the candidate as soon as I practically can. Cheers in advance for your time and consideration. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

Other than a few minor points noted above, this another article in great shape. Kosack (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks, I've responded above. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been addressed, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild

[edit]
Lead
Does that mean that you don't believe that non-footballing readers will be mislead? Or that you think they may be but are content for this to be the case as the RS is similarly misleading?
It's not misleading at all, it's just not explicit about how that money is won. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it would improve the article if it were explicit in this respect.
The RS say what the article says. And it's factually and verifiably correct. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I am sure you are aware, I am not addressing any of those points. Perhaps you would care to address the one I am making?
Well not really, I can't make up stuff that I don't have RS for. The reports used all have that terminology, along the lines of "winning the match is worth around X to the victorious team". That's how it's phrased for the citations for this year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • "for the London club". As it is not obvious to a non-football fan that Crystal Palace is/was in London and the club's location has not previously been introduced, this doesn't, IMO, really work. I don't personally see what it adds and would suggest deletion.
    The reader literally goes on in the next sentence to read "Crystal Palace's victory marked the first time a club from London..."
Err, that's my point. Once the reader has been told that Palace are "a London club" you can refer to them as such and expect a reader to understand. But not before. Not even a sentence before.
Ok, I tend to assume the reader will use context provided, but okeydokes, reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route
See my comment below on the use of Wikilinks.
I understood that the text of an article should explain itself and that Wikilinks were there for readers who wished for more detail on a topic or term, not to provide a basic understanding of the text. Eg Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:
  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.
I'm sorry, I simply don't agree that we need to explain in every article that uses the term away goals rule what it means. Similarly two legged tie and aggregate score, these are all English terms and they are certainly not "highly technical". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a counter-example: e.g. 1st Missouri Field Battery. This, for some reason, feels obliged to describe in a footnote what is meant by the common English word "bore" yet leaves our readers to guess at what is meant by Trans-Mississippi Department, James rifle (not even a rifle!), 6-pounder smoothbores, "case shot, and canister", rifling, caissons, etc etc. I've read the article and I'm happy that the relevant linking provides a sufficient way of me working these all out, but I don't think FAs should now be forced to come with a glossary of terms attached. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how how another nominated article "feels" is relevant to this point.
It's about consistent expectations across featured articles. The examples given above are way more technical than "aggregate score" (for example) which is a dictionary definition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that a non-specialist reader should be required to work out what the prose of an FAC means. I believe that the section of the MoS I quoted above supports this
I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed be preferable for the text to be clear in line to a non-expert, to terminology being explained in footnotes.
I am left unsure whether you are arguing that "leg", "on away goals" and "yellow card" or "booking" are 'plain English', or that there being a Wikilink for each allows 'working these all out', or both. Or one for some and t'other for others? I am trying to get to grips with why you feel the current prose is acceptable - I am entirely open to being persuaded - but am struggling, which is quite probably due to my slow rate of comprehension, to get to grips with just what you are saying. Any chance of explaining for each of these why you feel that the current situation is broadly comprehensible and why each meets the three points above from the MoS? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My acid test is that I have been through dozens of these reviews and not one single reader, be them football aficianados or otherwise, has found a single issue with the linking to explain plain English terms. I won't be adding countless footnotes to explain terms that are linked and which, to what appears to me to be the vast majority of readers, fully comprehensible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Match
Ah. When I first read it I assumed that you were including any appearances as a player. "was making his twelfth appearance as a manager at Wembley Stadium" or similar would avoid this potential misunderstanding.
If the above suggestion were to be adopted, this would, I think, be clear(er).
Well then there'd be complaints about the repeat of manager. It's clearer now, but probably not as plain as you would like it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not. It is still not clear what constitutes an "appearance".
It says "the first of his managerial appearances at the national stadium, in which he led Everton to " so if that's not clear, I don't know what else to say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep the discussion at first mention then.
What you have just written is clear to me. Why can the article not read similarly, to spare the likes of me having to watch the video in order to understand the text?
Because the way I wrote it above is hardly engaging prose. I could make it "... won the ball but it fell to Dyer ..." if you think that makes it clearer? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do, it would.
I've added "then" to make it clear what the sequence of events was, but in general I'm not going to write down basic dumb prose I'm afraid. It's supposed to be engaging. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems clear to me. Thanks.
See above for my comment on Wikilink usage.
Post-match

A nice little article. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild cheers, all comments addressed and/or responded to above. Thanks for the comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that TRM. Some response to your responses above. Where they are missing I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some further thoughts above on your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Responses above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some queries and suggestions above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Responses above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a report on the game, this is excellent. As an encyclopedia article where insider knowledge is not a given it falls, IMO, slightly short. There are some areas where what is meant is not clear, there are also cases where a general reader is required to click through a Wikilink for a sentence to be comprehensible, which by my reading of the MoS is deprecated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how this approach isn't being applied evenly across all FACs here, but never mind. I won't be adding a glossary of terms for basic English here, but I really appreciate the other comments which have been useful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here or if I have to stick to my "own section", as I would at ArbCom! But as another reviewer of this article, I have to say I agree with TRM that adding definitions for every piece of common football terminology would be detrimental to the quality of this article. The generally accepted convention is that we don't have to define every last piece of jargon in an article as long as it is well-known to anyone familiar with, but not necessarily expert in, the subject. Yellow cards, away goals and legs are ubiquitous terms for anyone who follows soccer, even in just a casual way. A newspaper article on this same game would not give definitions for those terms. And, as noted, pretty much any FA you choose to read contains some words which aren't defined and aren't obvious to someone who doesn't know the subject. To take another example, in Gog the Mild's own FA, Siege of Calais (1346–1347), I see the phrases "The city was an ideal entrepôt from an English point of view" and "their lives were spared by the intervention of England's queen, Philippa of Hainault, Froissart's patron, who persuaded her husband to exercise mercy". I honestly don't know what "entrepôt" or "patron" mean in this context, but I wouldn't expect their definitions to be spelled out in that article; the supplied Wikilink is sufficient. I know we generally shouldn't resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, but when examples of this phenomenon occur in almost all FAs, it's hard to see this as an actionable oppose. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The application of this curio of MOS is not being applied consistently at all. Acamptonectes was promoted a day or so back with the following terms just linked, not explained:
I am afraid that we will soon be expected to explain things like corner, volley, dribbling, etc in every single article about football which uses them. I don't think that's what we want, this is not a paper encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, hope you don't mind a comment from me. Your review was excellent but you're hung up on the jargon issue. We do expect readers to follow an article with a certain level of technical language, with wikilinks to help them because we're an encyclopedia. Imagine a Brittanica article on nuclear fission without any scientific language that non-physicists don't know? We don't dumb down... nor do we unnecessarily confuse things with excessive jargon. We walk a tightrope. This article is fine IMHO. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, of course I don't mind a comment. And I try hard with all of my reviewing (and my responses to reviewers when I am nominating) to remember that there is a strong possibility that I am simply wrong. I opposed here with some hesitation and after a lot of consideration. I still believe that I am correct to oppose, although as I pointed out in an attempt to start a conversation on TRMs talk page "It is ridiculously close." As TRM declines to discuss the outstanding issues with me it seems unlikely that we will make progress. Which is a great shame, as, as I said above, it is "A nice little article. I enjoyed reading that." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Gog, we're making progress just fine, as the consensus clearly demonstrates. But as I noted, most of your review comments were extremely useful. To oppose on this point seems most unusual given the vast array of terms noted above in an FA you yourself promoted, but that's how it rolls around here I guess. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looked over it again - I feel it is fine in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber many thanks for taking the time to give it a read through. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

A great read, that once again reminds me why I'm missing out by not being into football. Some things:

Ok Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nash punched clear a corner on 77 minutes - at?
Okay, well the cross from the attacker was "cleared behind" which is common speak for kicked off the pitch over the defender's own line, and a corner is awarded to the attacking team for doing that. It may be a touch "in-universe" but I've linked as many terms as possible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil cheers. Let me know if you have any suggested alterations based on my responses? Best wishes, The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No that's it. Nice work, as always gripping from the opening sentence. Support Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and much appreciate your suggestions, easy to get into a "not seeing the wood for the trees" scenario. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru

[edit]
Amakuru all addressed and/or responded to above, many thanks as always. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, all looks good. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - pass

[edit]

Support from ImaginesTigers

[edit]

Hi there, TRM. I've seen you kickin' about. I'm still a pretty new FA reviewer, so bear with me if I make an arse of myself. Instead of leaving comments re: prose, I prefer to just go through and copy-edit to save us both time. If there's anything you don't like, feel free to revert. After that, I'll do some spot-checking, and we'll see where we land. You can expect the review within 24 hours, I think, but I'll let you know if something comes up. Catch you soon! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ImaginesTigers, of course, Wikipedia is a collective effort and nothing is stopping you from getting stuck in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry for the delay, but so much has come up today, wiki-wise. I'll be spending about 5 hours driving tomorrow and packing up my old house to move, and I've another FAR to finish before this one. I will get to it either before or on Thursday. Sorry again, TRM. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers No problem, that's what happens when you have your own nomination going. No rush, take your time, good luck with the move, this will be here when you're ready! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TRM. I'm going to edit as I go, but I've already seen some things that don't make sense to me (as someone who doesn't at all play football). I asked a friend who does play football, and he understood what they meant, but to me the language is just unclear. I'm going to flag these up here with "(IDIOT)", because I don't know how to reword them.

That's pretty much everything. I've contributed so little that I won't be claiming this for the Cup, but I think the article is in a good spot. I Support the nomination. If you're still hanging for spot checks in a few days, let me know. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, no spot check required, it passed a source and image check a while back. Cheers though. I'll take a look at your comments in a moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers thanks, I've responded to your comments above and made some minor adjustments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Sorry for not giving you more! It’s straightforward and concise. Commendable job, TRM! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I think this is oven-ready now, the subjectivity over whether terms need more explanation is somewhat diminished by the fact that most of the reviewers are non-football aficionados and they support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, TRM, for taking over my job. I'm sure glad you're around to tell me how to handle your nominations! (now taking off snark hat). Let's see what @Gog the Mild: thinks, shall we? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought all you co-ords were already rushed off your feet. Never mind, no harm no foul! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Gog thinks is

Oppose. As a report on the game, this is excellent. As an encyclopedia article where insider knowledge is not a given it falls, IMO, slightly short. There are some areas where what is meant is not clear, there are also cases where a general reader is required to click through a Wikilink for a sentence to be comprehensible, which by my reading of the MoS is deprecated.

As TRM has neither engaged with me nor changed anything since I first wrote that my opinion is unaltered. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all. I engaged with you after you came to my talk page. I explained my position along with the position of every other reviewer of every other single one of these (and many other similar) FACs which is contrary to your own. I also requested a level playing field yet that seems abundantly not something you're prepared to offer. So that's just fine, let's just look at the consensus here. FAC is not about bending the demands of every single reviewer unilaterally, and in this highly subjective issue, I have gauged the general readership to be capable of understanding the three plain English phrases that you identified. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no freaking clue what any of the three terms mean, if that helps. (I'm assuming it's "Two legged tie", "away goals rule", and "aggregate score" - I do have some inkling of what "yellow card" means, but that's about it.) So... no, I'm not seeing that the oppose is not actionable. Whether it outweighs the other supports is something we'll have to see ... I'd like to see a review or two from someone who is not male and/or not necessarily familiar with sports-speak. As someone who has had to explain LOTS of historical and equine terminology in various FACs, it doesn't seem like a problem to me. Work it out ... without WP:POINTy comments on other FACs ... (yes, I do read the FAC pages...). Ealdgyth (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've made my position clear. This is not necessary for the vast majority of readers who have opined here and elsewhere. There is no POINTED comments anywhere, just a list at a lot of other FACs of terminology which is by far more complex than three basic English terms here. Please stop trying to make something where there is nothing. I'm looking for consistency in approach, not to see articles promoted with literally a dozen or more unexplained technical terms, some not even in English. Please also put back the terms you removed from the links. This has a consensus to promote. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so can we now assess the consensus which has formed please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Please also put back the terms you removed from the links." Was that addressed at me? I haven't touched the article. Please make it clear wwho you are addressing, as the comment is indented like a reply to me. And the coordinators assess consensus, not the nominators. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry about that. Thank you for fixing, TRM. The problems of slow connections. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you removed text from the links on this talk page in your reply, hence why I indented it as a reply directed at you. I've replaced them, don't worry. And FWIW, a number of those reviewing here are not familiar with sports-speak (e.g. Ceoil said clearly A great read, that once again reminds me why I'm missing out by not being into football. before supporting). As have a number been in the past with no trouble at all. As for And the coordinators assess consensus, not the nominators., I don't recall saying anything different. I said so can we now assess the consensus which has formed please?. Never mind, something odd's playing out here when articles are recently promoted with more than a dozen highly technical terms going unexplained and yet this is now suddenly in need of a reviewer who is "not male". Unbelievable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assess the reviews at the actual FAC. There is an outstanding oppose and, yes, the fact that one reviewer said they weren't familiar with football and thought just the links were fine is helpful, but I can't just dismiss the valid oppose either. That's why I said I'd like to see another review from "someone who is not male and/or not necessarily familiar with sports-speak" ... which is perfectly reasonable. We already expect to see reviews from folks outside MilHist for MilHist and for folks outside the pop culture for pop culture. Generally, it's a good idea to have reviews from outside the subject area. And any time there is an outstanding oppose, we tend to want MORE reviews that take into account that oppose before promoting. If that upsets you, I'm sorry. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've got at least two supports from people who have said they're not experts or particularly interested in the subject. Wanting more reviews doesn't upset me, I have nothing to hide, but I won't be adding a glossary of terms to each of these articles just because someone doesn't understand the word aggregate (for example) which is a plain english term "a whole formed by combining several separate elements." As a non-sports fan, you probably don't know what a corner is in this context or dribbling but we're not suddenly going to insert parenthetical explanations for every term or footnotes for every term. It's never been the case in the past, it isn't the case for every other FAC recently promoted, so it's odd that it's the case here. The terms are linked, and that is more than adequate given they are in plain English. And finally, we're asked to ensure that a FA "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". The unnecessary detail is about the generalities of association football and in no way specific to this individual match. But I'm in no rush and I'm sure other reviewers will have other opinions on words they don't understand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

Lee Vilenski cheers, I've made various changes and responded to all your comments above. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Very nice article.

Comments from Dweller

[edit]
  1. Is it possible you can hide resolved issues above, or is that discouraged at FAC these days? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying really hard to find fault with this article, but struggling rather. You've got a good template for them, haven't you? I'll keep looking and chime back in when I can. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the done thing to hide the comments so you'll just have to put up with it as it stands. As a non-non-male non-football supporter (obv, supporting Norwich is the opposite of supporting "football"), I'd be delighted if you could just let me know if it's readable. We've done the sources, the images, the links etc, to death here. But onwards we go! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've tried really hard to spot glitches, errors, typos, inaccuracies, obscurities, lack of referencing, whatever, but I can't. It's a dang good article. Interesting seeing the mention of Ipswich... those were real glory days, competing near the top of the second tier. May they return some time in the future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

[edit]

I will take a look at this article later. From a quick skim I can't find anything egregious, but I'll look more in depth soon, maybe tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically all I had after reading through this article closely. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius thanks for your review, much appreciated. I've addressed and/or responded to all your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: No problem. I support this article for promotion as I can't find anything else that needs to be fixed.. Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, always good to get diverse input, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder, just a note to say I hope to review this in next day or so. JennyOz (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, I've added comments but have a few more minor bits to do tomorrow.

I'll be back. I had added a placeholder to 3 reviews but RL celebrations didn't allow requisite editing concentration!! JennyOz (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JennyOz many thanks as ever for your diligent and highly detailed review (part 1). Much appreciated as always, look forward to the next tranche! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got back. I have made a couple of very minor tweaks. Some wlinks may seem obvious but I reckon they're harmless - I won't be at all miffed if you undo any. I have added a few replies above and below are a couple of new comments. I have just read the other review comments for the first time. (I purposefully don't read them before reviewing.) That's a lot of reviews!

  • Howard Kendall, the Sheffield United manager, was making his twelfth appearance at Wembley Stadium - perhaps: Sheffield United's Howard Kendall was making his twelfth appearance as a manager at Wembley...
  • Ref 63 Hopkins sends Eagles soaring into heaven - I can't access, does the title have Hopkins instead of Hopkin? I'm presuming it's their typo, not yours.

That's me done I think. I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: as this nomination has seven supports, can I nominate another solo candidate please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on closing

[edit]

So, we've now got a lot of supports (8?) and one firm oppose that doesn't look like it'll change. How do the delegates handle this sort of circumstance? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I’ve apparently upset TRM ...I’m going to let Ian take over, as I have no wish to upset TRM further. @FAC coordinators: -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a prose. I have been three days in clinic with emergency surgery for my husband, but did have time to catch up on the reading regarding this nomination, and I think pretty much everyone is missing the boat here. The problem is not MOS; it's prose related. And comparing a football article to a biology article misses a lot of points. What has always been the case at FAC is that sentences should be understandable, with or without an indepth understanding of what is covered in a wikilink, and whether or not that wikilink can be easily summarized in a few words (which, away goal cannot), and whether or not the reader intends to expand their knowledge by clicking on a link. For example, the statement, "No further goals were scored, with Sheffield United advancing to the final on away goals" has no meaning whatsoever for the non-football person. One cannot begin to guess what that means without clicking on the link. And yet, this is so easily solved by simply providing the context that it is a tie-breaking mechanism. If just those few words were added for context, then the reader who doesn't know what an away goal is no longer needs to know any further detail about what an away goal is, and can click on the link if they choose to learn more. But they know, then, in this article, for context, that it is a tie-breaking mechanism, and that is all that is relevant for this article. This is not a MOS matter; it is a basic prose matter-- the sentence is jargon and not understandable to a non-football person. I expect to convert this oppose to a support (once the other examples are similarly fixed), apologize for the hurried typing, and won't be able to add more today as I have a long drive back to the teaching clinic for post-surgery visit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine supports and three non-football reviews and at least one "non-male" review and you weigh in like this? No, this is hugely problematic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I continue to oppose the wholesale addition of explanations for every footballing term, if the "away goals" issue is really the only remaining bone of contention standing between a fail (or withdrawal) and a pass, then - at risk of stirring further controversy - I'd say let's just tweak it. Indeed, I have invoked WP:BOLD and had a stab at doing just that - the text now reads "No further goals were scored, and Sheffield United advanced to the final as a result of having scored more away goals than Ipswich". Does that satisfy your concern, SandyGeorgia?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do prefer that wording, but I don't see how a single phrase could ever be enough to correspond to an oppose. If away goals is too much of a term that is not understandable, then rewording to this doesn't make it much clearer. You'd have to suggest that someone knows what an away goal was... and that they knew what an "away match" was. In the context of football, away goals is quite the basic term. There does have to be basic knowledge, or we'd have to explain what a "goal" or "sideline" was each time it was used. I fear for every article if this is the approach as I'm yet to see an FAC pass without a single jargon term used. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, I did not have time to detail the other examples; I am off to a one-hour drive each way in bad weather to a teaching clinic following emergency surgery. I had time while sitting in waiting rooms over last three days to read the various arguments. I can follow up tomorrow; I suggest that withdrawal is premature, and I expected this to have a very easy solution. That is, every term does not have to be defined; sentences only need context. Perhaps you will have time to do similar on other areas of contention before I return home and have time to catch up, bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

oops, ps, sorry, to your direct question ... "No further goals were scored, and Sheffield United advanced to the final as a result of having scored more away goals than Ipswich". Does that satisfy your concern ... no, the problem is that the non-football person does not understand that away goals are used as a tie breaking mechanism in such cases ... adding something about that will solve the whole dilemma in the fewest possible words ... not in a place right now to be suggesting wording, which you can do better, but something like ... No further goals were scored, so a tie-breaking mechanism was needed, and Sheffield United advanced to the final as a result of having scored more away goals than Ipswich. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: first of all, I wish you and your husband all the best and hoping he makes a speedy recovery from his surgery. I can appreciate that the affairs of Wiki take a back seat at such times. Thanks for the above replies and I will answer those points here and you can come back to this or not whenever you are ready. On the specific point of the away goals, I thought myself that this would strike the balance between being concise (which is required by FA criterion 4) as well as being understandable to a broad audience. I honestly don't think the addition of "so a tie-breaking mechanism was needed" is required. We established already that the match finished 3–3 on goals scored, and that extra time (overtime) was therefore utilised. There were still no further goals scored, so it goes without saying that some form of tie-breaking mechanism was still required. The text now says explicitly that Sheffield United advanced because of their superior number of away goals. If that isn't a tie-breaker, then what else would it be?
On the more general question I'm obviously disappointed that this wasn't, as I thought, the only example of text that could be clarified. I genuinely cannot see any difference between the jargon used in the football articles and the examples raised concerning biology and military history articles. I genuinely don't know what an entrepot is, which means that Siege of Calais (1346–1347) definitely could be made easier to understand with the addition of a few words. But would that addition be desirable? No, I don't think so. We discussed this point at length in the Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#MOS:LINKSTYLE_question thread last week, and as far as I can tell there was a general sense of disquiet at the sudden appearance of objections along these lines. The bottom line is that we need a consistent to be followed, football and biology aren't fundamentally different. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article is being held to standards that are inconsistent with articles on other topics ... but more to the point, incompatible with an encyclopedia. I've seen the MOS and a small section of it is being used here to contradict the overwhelming mass of what it's driving at. An article about nuclear fission could not be written coherently in this fashion, even a simple article, never mind a Featured one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Acamptonectes was promoted this month. The fourth word is "genus" - wikilinked, but not explained - (it could have said a classification of species). In a similar way, just in the lead, we have "tail fluke" (a fin), "platypterygiine" (type of icthyosaur), "morphology" (stucture) etc. I agree with all of those decisions. Adding the explanatory text would have made it less readable, not more, and the promotion was a good one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I am on real computer, I will catch up first on the general thread at wt:fac, then follow up here, sorry that a medical emergency intervened, where I was able to read from iPad but not keep up with iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was a general conversation at FAC. Makes sense though, as I can see this might be us struggling with a manifestation of a wider problem - as I point out above, I think science articles (to pick one topic) will fail FAC rules on this MOS point or be gibberish, both of which are undesirable. I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow. Sorry to hear about your medical emergency, Sandy. Of course that takes priority. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies once again for piecemeal posting; here is a better list and description of where I get lost in the jargon. (Disclaimer: having spent my entire adult life around soccer, it is still full of bewildering rules and strategy for me.) Looking at this version; the confusion occurs in the Route to the final section.

  • Sheffield United finished the regular 1996–97 season in fifth place in the Football League First Division – the second tier of the English football league system – one place and two points ahead of Crystal Palace. ... So, I understand they were sort of kind of tied at fifth and sixth place, but I do not know what the "two points" refers to at all, or why it is relevant. And looking at the chart of points in the text, I don't see a tie at all.
    @SandyGeorgia: I think the confusion here is because you are reading the word "tier" as tie. When it says the "second tier", it refers to the fact that there is the top league (the Premier League) at the first tier, and then the league in which these teams played (known at the time as the Football League First Division) was one tier below that, i.e. the second tier. Every year, three teams are promoted from tier 2 to tier 1, while three teams from tier 1 are relegated to tier 2. So Sheffield United and Crystal Palace were not tied for position at all, the former were 5th (with 73 points) and the latter were 6th (with 71 points), hence the two points behind. I don't know if my explanation here clears things up for you, but the problem for this article will be that if we have to go into something like this much detail then it's going to end up too wordy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think that was my confusion; I think I got that part, but maybe I am still missing something? I understand they ended up within points of each other; I don't understand what those points are based on, and I don't understand why there is a two-legged tie when the points aren't tied. It is possible that I am more confused than I can convey in typing :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what the issue is. So, the football league always has a four team playoff, with teams finishing the end of the seasons ranked third through sixth playing. The league portion (before this) has every team play the other teams (twice) and they score 3 points for a win (1 for a draw). At the end of that league, the top two get promoted to the premier League, where the other four 'fight' for the third promotion spot in a knockout formula. This contains the four teams, and the third highest team plays the sixth, and the fourth plays the fifth. I think the word "tie" here you are confusing with the team's being equal - rather than as being a fixture. It being a two-legged tie means both of the original two "semi-finals" are contested over two matches where each team plays at home in one of the matches. I fear that the word "tie" is causing grief, but it has quite a few meanings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (I penned a long reply at the same time as Lee it seems, but will post it here anyway!) - Ah I see... I think... So the points are based on the teams' performance over the whole season. Three points for every game won, one point for a draw (i.e. if the game finishes level - what you'd probably call a "tie" in US sports, but the term tie isn't used in that sense in UK soccer), and zero points for a defeat. At the end of the regular season, the two teams with the highest number of points get promoted automatically. Teams 3 through 6 then compete in a four-team playoff competition for the last remaining promotion place. Three plays six over two legs (i.e. two separate games, one at each team's stadium), and four plays five over two legs. The total number of goals for each side from the two legs is added up to give an "aggregate score". If that is level then they play 30 minutes of overtime, and if it's still level then the tie-breaking mechanisms kick in. The two legs taken together are referred to as a "tie" (nothing to do with tied in the sense of being level, it's a completely different usage!). After completing those two ties, the winners of each of them play each other in a single one off final at the national stadium with the winner gaining the promotion spit. It's that final, the 1997 edition, which is the subject of this article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both missed out on the two automatic places for promotion ... this (automatic promotion) is explained in the lead, but the lead is a summary of the article. Automatic promotion is not re-explained here, so I have to backtrack to understand how this works, by reading the lead. It would be helpful to have everything in one place.
  • Sheffield United finished seven points behind Barnsley (who were promoted in second place) and twenty-five behind league winners Bolton Wanderers ... again, what are these points? I see a table of points which has no meaning for me. How are they determined? And, this is the first mention of Barnsley and Bolton, so I have to again go back to the lead to see they were the two automatic-- would it be helpful to mention that in the lead? There is a lot to unpack in this section.
  • Crystal Palace faced Wolves in their play-off semi-final, with the first match of the two-legged tie taking place at Crystal Palace's home ground Selhurst Park in London on 10 May 1997. ... I do NOT feel a need to understand whatever a "two-legged tie" is at this point, but still have no idea what it references. But when I click on the two-legged tie article, I get no clarity. I think it means a tie that is settled based on two matches. But I can't even determine why it's a tie to begin with, based on the points presented in the table. How are those points determined and why aren't they used exclusively? And why can't we just say that ties are broken by having two matches, one at each of the home fields?
  • But when I click on the two-legged tie article, it gets even more muddled because I find that
    First leg: Team A 4–1 Team B, and
    Second leg: Team B 2–1 Team A somehow aggregate to 7–3 instead of 6–2. 'Tis a mystery. In this match, how do 3–1 and 2–1 end up at 4–3? Nowhere do I understand in this article how "aggregating" works.
    That article lists:
    First leg: Team A 4–1 Team B
    Second leg: Team B 2–1 Team A
    And gives the correct final score of 5-3 to team A. Not sure where you got 7-3 from. An aggregate is simply the addition of the scores. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Lee; the 7 was a typo (for 5). And I now see the problem; I am adding vertically, rather than noticing that the first score lists Team A first, while the second lists Team B first (d'oh). I now see the 5–3.
    So, in fact, it is now clear to me that an aggregate score is nothing more than the sum of the goals from the two matches. It is unclear to me why we can't just say that. So, if I am now understanding everything, until we get to the separate tie-breaking mechanism of "away goals", this whole thing amounts to ... for some reason there was a tie (although it is not clear from the points chart how that came to be considered a tie, since the points are not equal), and then two matches are played between the tied teams, one at each team's field, and an aggregate score is calculated as the sum of all goals scored in the two games by each team. Is that correct so far? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost (see above comment about the team's not being equal in score). The issue I suppose with saying anything other than aggregate, is that is the official terminology being used. If a team wins 4-2 after two games, the scoreboard will say 4-2 agg(regggrate).
    Generally in English sports, we rarely have matches simply continue because there is not a winner (the old style of FA Cup used to have unlimited matches for each round), and there is usually some sort of list of criteria a match should end in. This can include extra time, away goals or a penalty shootout. In my eyes, I don't think we gain anything extra from saying that there was a tie-breaker needed as we state the team qualified for the next round due to scoring more away goals (or more goals in the match they played not at their home stadium). I'd agree it might be warranted if this was an article on that particular match, bit this is an article about the final. For the same reason explaining how teams scored points for the league table is much less important for a one-match final, so is the different ways in which the team could qualify for the final, where those same rules don't apply. Even more so as we do have an article (well a section in another article) on the play-offs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru and Lee Vilenski: OK, some of the pieces are beginning to come together now, but I am still swimming in a sea of confusion :) Give me some time to sort through this new info and see what I actually understand now. It may make more sense for me to type up on the talk page of this FAC my understanding now of what the text is saying, so we can see if I in fact am understanding. Is there an article somewhere that explains the points presented in the chart, as in Amakuru's 20:55, 29 January 2021 post ? And would it be possible to spell out the abbreviations in the points chart ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, despair not ... I remember going through something very similar to this on a baseball FAR, where it was astounding to me to realize that not everyone understood you had to go around all four bases to score, and you had to touch the bases as you rounded them. :) We take much for granted on sports we know! And I have had a life-long struggle of trying to understand soccer ... and now you all are telling me, I think, that World Cup is different ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the World Cup is something different but does have some similar themes (that also has a play-off and league tables and such). I think the point being made here is that we couldn't write every baseball article explaining how a player scores, but there will be users who don't know this. A topic on a football article should expect someone to know how the game is played, and shouldn't have to explain something so integral. From my area of expertise, I would link to a pot, but I wouldn't explain it in detail, as it's integral to the game, like a goal is in football. I understand the need to know things that are specific to this competition, such as how there is a rule that the semi-finals needed away goals - but that wouldn't really be suitable for this article. I think you have been undone by the use of the word "tie", but this is written in briteng (as it should), which would use this type of term. You could mention that the team won 4-3 cumulative score, but any reader familiar with the topic (even slightly so) would wonder why you wouldn't use the correct verbiage. I think if I read a similar topic on a subject I wasn't familiar with, I would find lots of such cases, but that does not mean that the article isn't accessible, just that I don't have a suitable knowledge base to get the most of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect we are more in agreement than you realize. No, we don't need to change basic terminology like "aggregate" to "cumulative" to clarify. Just as we expect baseball to define terms like home run, walk, strike, hit, RBI, we don't expect every article about a baseball player or a baseball game to redefine those basic terms-- links suffice in those cases. Just as we expect the FA association football to define terms like "header" (and now it does), we don't expect every article about a football game or player to define a header. If you're reading about a football game, a "header" is pretty clear in context. Since I don't see anyone asking here for terms like "header" to be defined, I think we generally agree. But this article is about playoffs, and it is impossible to understand how the teams got to those playoffs from what is on the page now. I think, based on what you all have told me now, I could try putting together something here on talk for your review. It would not take many more words to clear up the confusion (and me typing it up may illustrate where the confusion is). But I need two things: "Jan Åge Fjørtoft who held off Chris Swailes and beat Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal" is still indecipherable to me ... could someone tell me what that means? And where does one find an article about the points presented in the chart, as in Amakuru's 20:55, 29 January 2021 post ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sandy, I'm about to go to bed now but will hopefully be back to contribute to this discussion again in more detail tomorrow. Just to answer a few of your questions in no particular order:
    • I would interpret the phrase you are asking about above as meaning roughly: "Jan Åge Fjørtoft was running towards the goal with the ball at his feet. Chris Swailes, a defensive player for Ipswich, was attempting to tackle him. But Fjørtoft managed to avoid being tackled by Swailes (he "held him off"), and was able to kick a shot towards the goal. That shot went past Richard Wright, who was the goalkeeper (a single specialist player on each of the teams who is allowed to handle the ball, and would be described by the phrase "in the Ipswich goal"). Wright attempted to stop the ball going past him, but he failed to do so, hence he was "beaten". Then the ball went into the goal and Sheffield United took a 1–0 lead." I think you'll agree with me that we wouldn't include the text I've just written in our article though... someone who follows soccer would think I'd gone slightly mad if I wrote to that level of detail!
    • I suspect the article Group tournament ranking system is the one you're looking for, which explains how this kind of points system works. There's also the slightly more football-specific Three points for a win article, but that one focuses more on the change from teams getting 2 points for a win (as they used to back in the old days, up until the 1980s or so) to the present system of their getting 3 points.
    • Re the focus of this article, it's worth bearing in mind that this isn't actually the article about the playoffs themselves - that would be 1997 Football League play-offs, which covers all of the playoffs for that year in tiers 2, 3 and 4, but is clearly in a woeful state right now with very little prose of any sort. The article we're reviewing here is about the first division playoff *final*, which is one single match on a specific date. The "route to the final" section is akin to say the background section in an article about a battle, and although you'd expect it to touch on the main points, it doesn't need to go into all the fine detail for that background. The matches described there are not the focus of this page. Cheers again  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Hopkin equalised midway through the second half ... is "equalised" BrEng for "tying the score"?
  • The home side went ahead in the 40th minute through ... I don't know why "home side" is mentioned (is that elegant variation to avoid naming the team), but I am forced then to read backwards to sort out which team was "home".
  • ... through Jan Åge Fjørtoft who held off Chris Swailes and beat Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal ... no idea what this says. What exactly did each of these three players do?
  • The return leg took place at Portman Road ... now I am guessing that a new term, "return leg" is the second match in a tie that is broken by somehow aggregating the scores of two matches, although I have yet understood why it was a tie to begin with, and why aggregate scores are not a sum. But now a new term to deal with.
  • With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time ... so, more confusion, at this point, the aggregate scores are summing correctly (1–1 and 2–2 add to 3–3).
  • So, next I understand that because of this 3–3 "aggregate" tie (even though I don't yet understand aggregate), extra time is played (note that all of this is very different, for example, from baseball, where you just keep playing until someone wins). During that extra time, no one scored, so some new and different tie-breaking mechanism (away goals) comes in to play. I don't need to know the nitty-gritty ins and outs of what away goals are, but it would be helpful to know that in such cases, the tie-breaking mechanism is based on which team scored more goals on the playing field of the other team; that should not be that hard to say.

Much less clear is the how it all came to be a tie to begin with (based on the mysterious points in the table), and how aggregate scores and points work. I hope this helps explain what is not understood. I anticipate getting this sorted quickly so I can strike my Oppose. We should avoid having other readers have to try to dig in to the various Wikilinked articles to try to understand this. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I note the suggestions above that the withdrawal request itself be withdrawn, but that hasn't happened and in any case we don't have consensus to promote. Whether inconsistency in accessibility standards across FAC is a factor in that is something being discussed on WT:FAC, which is the appropriate venue for it. Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 29 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/1997_Football_League_First_Division_play-off_Final/archive1&oldid=1003645178"