Talk:Chelsea F.C. 2–4 Bradford City A.F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chelsea F.C. 2–4 Bradford City A.F.C./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review the article over the course of the day, I'll probably make several revisions to this page before complete but I will send you a message once complete. Thanks for your work on the article so far, it looks in good shape. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Needs a short description. See WP:SHORTDESC for more info.
  • The result of the match should be made clear in the first paragraph. All you'd need to do is add "before going on to win 4–2" or similar to the end of the second sentence.
  • had conceded three goals at home to a lower division side - I'd say "three or more goals" just because they conceded four in this match.
  • there were 49 places between the two clubs - I would explain that this refers to the football pyramid and link appropriately so readers who are unfamiliar with football understand what it means and can find out more if they want to.
  • The final paragraph of the lead over emphasises other matches that are only loosely related to this one. That level of detail would be more appropriate in the aftermath section. See MOS:LEADREL for more info. I'd remove the other match results (put them in the aftermath section) but leave in the fact that there were a few unexpected results in this round.
  • I don't think you need as many citations in the lead as you've got. There's nothing contentious so, provided the information is sourced elsewhere, you don't have to source it here. For example, the score will be sourced in the match report further down, the Telegraph & Argus poll should be in the aftermath section, as should Chelsea's quadruple hopes being extinguished. The Millwall score and the Big Six comments should also be sourced in the background and aftermath sections respectively.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I've referenced the aftermath section above, I didn't realise there was a separate post-match section. Consider my feedback above appropriate to both and use your judgement as to which is more appropriate. Apologies that I wasn't clearer at the time.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • While José Mourinho was at his first stint - Should be in not at.
  • Be fair to both teams. If we are going to include a sentence on Mourinho's pre-match comments, do the same for Parkinson.
  • Should be prose around both teams' previous matches in the competition.
  • Could we make the table compliant with WP:DTT? That should just mean adding scope=row and scope=col to the header and the round column.
  • The table also needs a key. Personally, I don't think you need to include (1) to indicate the tier of the opposition but if you are going to, you need to tell readers what this means. Same for (H) and (A), someone unfamiliar with football won't know what it means.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • it will be a "big disgrace" - Wrong tense, would be.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Match[edit]

  • Prose is completely unsourced. There are sources in the article already you can use, otherwise dig out a few match reports from different publishers. You can use these to quote descriptions of goals, particularly if they were top quality or rather bad/embarrassing.
  • scored to make the score 2–1 - Try not to repeat words in such close proximity. Perhaps "scored for 2–1" or something similar.
  • The early second half - Doesn't quite read right, I'd turn this sentence around and say "Both teams had chances early in the second half" or something along those lines.
  • famous victory for Bradford City - It's not for Wikipedia to decide if this was famous or not. If you have a source which calls it a "famous victory" then it would be fine to include as a quote.
  • I'm unsure how MOS:FLAGS applies here. I have seen different match articles which don't use flags in this section and others which do. I have asked for advice at the Teahouse and will update you when I hear back.
  • The BBC report link needs to be updated to a full citation per WP:CITE. Bare URLs are a good start but a good article should follow best practices and cite all sources so they appear in the reference list at the bottom of the article.
  • Align the yellow card and substitution icons in the same column for Bradford.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From MOS:SPORTFLAG: "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." As both teams are English, there is no use for flag icons here at all.

As a result, the flag icons should not be included.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match[edit]

  • committed to his words before the press conference - I don't know what this means.
  • very impressed with his players due to the result of the match - I think it's obvious he is referring to the match so I'd remove everything after players.
  • 2013 Football League Cup Final - final should be lower case.
  • Chelsea legend, John Terry, even gave him his shirt - legend is MOS:PUFFERY, not needed. Neither is "even", just "gave him his shirt".

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

  • one of the most ridiculous upsets - We can quote "most ridiculous" as it's in the source.
  • I'd use {{see also}} rather than {{main article}} as the season articles include details of what happened before the match and this section is about the aftermath.
  • Because of that win, Bradford City progressed to the fifth round - Don't start sentences with conjunctions, "Bradford City progressed to the fifth round" is fine.
  • Quarter-finals - lower case q
  • They did not make a trip to Wembley Stadium though - Readers not familiar with football will not know what this means because it reads as if Bradford withdrew or were disqualified before the quarter-final took place. I wouldn't mention Wembley and just structure the sentence around the outcome of the tie with Reading.
  • 4 - should be four per MOS:NUMERAL. Also applies to 3 and 5th.
  • They were not playing in any other competitions at the time, as they were knocked out of both the Football League Trophy and Football League Cup back in September - Happened before the match so it's not relevant in the aftermath section. May be relevant in the background section if you wish to add further details of Chelsea and Bradford's season prior to the match.
  • The Telegraph & Argus poll should be mentioned in this section.
  • Chelsea did not let that upset affect the rest of their season - How do we know this? They could have used the defeat as motivation so therefore it would have affected the rest of their season.
  • The whole Chelsea section needs to be written in past tense. "They won", not "they would win".
  • allowing them to win 2–1 - allowing implies that they required permission of some sort. Same for the PSG result.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Close, once points above are addressed, should be grand.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Same as 1a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. One section is unsourced.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Don't see any sources which aren't reliable. Will spot check after changes have been made
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Will check once changes have been made
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All three images are relevant, captioned and appropriately licenced.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

I think there is a bit of work to do still to bring this up to GA standard. It's a workable amount though and I think at this point it would be useful to pause the review and allow for some changes to be made before continuing. Just want to add as well though that you've made a good start here and addressed the points in the first review well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: I am a lot busier now than I was when I first submitted this for GAN, but thank you for the review. It will take me a while to get through all of your critiques, suggestions, and other comments. I will try to answer them as quickly as I can. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, there's no rush. I'm happy to leave it on hold for a couple of weeks to give you time if you need it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KingSkyLord: Hey, just wanted to check in and see how things are going. I don't want to leave this hanging but, as it's not too far away, I'd rather give time to allow it to be promoted to GA than failed in the near future. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as it's been a month and there's been no more progress I'm going to fail this rather than leaving it hanging. It's not to far away which is a shame. Hopefully someone is able to take it on and make the suggested improvements in the not too distant future. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_F.C._2–4_Bradford_City_A.F.C.&oldid=1206639354"