Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C./archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 1 September 2020 [1].

Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C.

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather notorious football match that took place in 2002. I was there myself to watch Cardiff cause one of the biggest FA Cup upsets of the modern age. The win, along with the chaos that erupted at the end of the game, make this one of the most memorable moments in the club's recent history. I had this on my to do list for sometime before getting round to creating it and quickly moved it up to GA. I think it's in good shape for a run at FAC now, so I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC

Great article about an interesting affair, Kosack. Your former chairman was certainly a nutter. As the GA Review concluded, the prose and article were already of high quality, so I've got a few minor comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter part in "He found teammate Mark Viduka who scored from 20 yards after shooting past Cardiff goalkeeper Neil Alexander." is redundant.
Ninian Park is linked in "...on fences surrounding the home fan enclosures at Ninian Park so..." but should be linked in "The match was switched to Cardiff's Ninian Park over safety concerns..."
Robert Earnshaw is overlinked in "...opponents quickly and Robert Earnshaw made several early..."
Neil Alexander too in "...after shooting past Cardiff goalkeeper Neil Alexander."
And Andy Legg in "Alan Smith fouled Andy Legg 22 yards from the Leeds goal."
BBC Sport should be linked in the first ref and not in the second.
The Independent in ref 10 and not in 24.
Reach plc (ref 26) has a wiki page.
As do TeessideLive (ref 31), Evening Standard (36), ESPN (37) and Yorkshire Post (48).

@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've amended the points above. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Good work, Kosack. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here . Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds were leading the Premier League at the time while Cardiff were placed 10th in the Second Division, two tiers below their opposition. - perhaps mention that the second division was in fact the third tier. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FA Cup - maybe worth a link? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mention Leeds had a bye Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
22,009 spectators - is the exact amount relevant? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped the exact amount and included a generalisation. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

confidently predict that his side "will start and end our FA Cup run in Cardiff" in reference to the final being held at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. - quite ironic! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly set himself up for a fall there! Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodgate was eventually found guilty of affray - not familiar with this term. Maybe link? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hammam had become renowned in English football for his eccentric style. - whom? Cite? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded slightly to avoid the opinion side of it. The ref included makes reference to the eccentricity but I've added another that actually uses the term to be doubly sure. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I saw from a first pass. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks very much Lee, I've amended the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just have three more:

Is there a lede image we could use? Presumably there was a match programme, which is pretty clear fair use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a programme, but the only image I can find of it is obscured by other material. I've added a token "ground image" to the infobox to provide some sort of image. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that there was a similar match with the same scoreline in 2015? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realise there is an outstanding RM, but considering the above, I do think a year disambiguator would make sense in this case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a year disambiguation myself for the title. The RM seems to be fading somewhat with no real outcome, so I may propose moving it along and adding the year. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Hi Lee, the RM has closed as no consensus but I'm planning on adding the "(2002)" to the article anyway. I've asked Ian Rose about the best course of action and he has advised that it would be better to do this once the FAC has reached a conclusion. I hope this doesn't affect any potential support from yourself. Kosack (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - No that's fine. Names aren't really covered by the MOS really, I just thought it be worth mentioning. I realise this would be the primary topic even if the other match was notable, but I think a disambiguator would help. I'll leave it to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Harrias

Not much from me; I conduced the GA review, and the article has been improved since then.

What is supporting the player's positions? The "Report" link is unclear, and does not provide positions at all for the substitutes.
The 11v11.com covers everyone apart from Smith and Legg I would say. It has doubles for the defenders, but all of the positions would be classed as defence either way I think. Legg is down as midfielder/defender but ref 28 shows him replacing Dean Gordon at left back from the club's previous match, this is also mentioned in the pre-game section. The Smith one is a little trickier he's down as a midfielder/forward but both 11v11.com and ESPN list him first, before the main forwards Viduka and Fowler. Also, I'd perhaps consider it common sense that Leeds weren't playing a two-man midfield? I've added refs for the sub positions also. Kosack (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fine line between common sense and original research! I probably shouldn't bring up the shirt numbers, huh? Harrias ^talk 14:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, certainly. I'm not sure how much more concrete I can make it unfortunately. I could switch him to MF/FW perhaps? The squad numbers are much easier thankfully, I've moved the subs ref up to cover those now too. Kosack (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have done enough. Harrias ^talk 15:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is supporting the kits?
There are images in the BBC article that show both kits, they're both basically plain. Not sure how best to ref this, I'm sure there was an option to add a second match report but I can't seem to get it working. Kosack (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the {{Football kit}} template, put it after the team name: | title = Cardiff City<ref>Blah blah</ref> ? Harrias ^talk 14:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kosack (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of flags in the player lists contravenes MOS:FLAG.
Removed. Kosack (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image of Ninian Park needs alt text.
Added. Kosack (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all from me. Harrias ^talk 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review Harrias, I've addressed each comment above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to support, nice work. I might claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias ^talk 15:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I've added this to the source and image review list to get some. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Image licensing and placement meets requirements. (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

Pre-match: "Apart from Gordon, Cork made one further change from the club's previous fixture, a 3–1 defeat to Bristol City on 29 December 2001, Jason Bowen was dropped to the substitutes bench with Paul Brayson starting in his place." This is a classic run-on sentence. Was the last comma meant to be a period? That seems to be the most logical break point, so I'd handle it that way.
~~Later: "before being eliminated from the FA Cup in the fourth round at the end January..." needs "of" before January.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for taking a look, both points addressed. Kosack (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass

Source reliability and formatting looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 1 September 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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.