Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2021 [1].

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some have described this as one of, if not the, biggest upset in English "soccer". Top-division Coventry "Sky Blues" City, riding high in the First Division and winners of the oldest soccer football cup in the world just two years before were quite literally humbled by a bunch of "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" playing for non-League club Sutton "Amber and Chocolates" United. A hard one for my co-nom (a Cov fan) to swallow but a pleasure for the footballing world who love this kind of "David beats Goliath" story. And it's true too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image is freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You need to state specifically that the Conference is/was the fifth tier of English football, to give context to the "gulf" between the teams. I didn't spot this mentioned anywhere, meaning that a reader not familiar with English football would not know whether there were 1,2,4 or 12 divisions between them........
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billed as a potential cup upset by the media, the visitors went into the match as strong favourites" - these two statements seem at odds with each other. Cov were strong favourites, yet the media predicted a potential upset? There's also no mention in the body of the article (as opposed to the lead) that the media saw it as a possible upset.
    I'll come back to this... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right here, I think I'll tone it down in the lead and add some more about the prelude in the main body. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the "upset" thing because I can't actually (believe it or not) find anything in advance of the match where anyone really gave them a cat's chance. But I did find the odds before the match of both sides winning the cup, so that's in there as a clear indicator of Cov being clear favourites... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phil Dawson who struck an oustwinging cross" - spot the typo :-)
    Done in both places. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had knocked out Football League teams in the previous year's FA Cup, defeating both Aldershot Town and Peterborough United" - might be worth stating which divisions these teams played in
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One other thing I just thought of - they can't have defeated Aldershot Town, as that team didn't exist at the time. They actually defeated Aldershot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's me being far too young... Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "went into the FA Cup tie having lost away to bottom club Aylesbury United and drawing at home against Maidstone United." - firstly, this isn't grammatically correct, and secondly does this refer to their two most recent matches prior to the cup tie? It's a bit unclear.......
    Cleared up, hopefully. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coventry City had finished the previous season in tenth place in the Football League First Division." - clarify at this point that at the time this was the highest division in English football
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But his header was poor" - don't start a sentence with "but"
    Rejigged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 70th minute, Coventry replaced Cyrille Regis for Keith Houchen" => "In the 70th minute, Coventry replaced Cyrille Regis with Keith Houchen", also needs a comma after Houchen
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantically, Coventry's shirts were really sky blue and white halves, not all sky blue (fond memories of the Hummel kits of that era) - see here
    I'm not convinced they were white/blue, look at the video where it looks more like blue/sky blue?? It's a poor quality video mind you... I'm at a bit of a loss how to "create" the necessary shirt pattern. The football kit template is a bit nightmarish. I'll see if I can ask someone! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the identity of the Sutton substitute not known? If not, it might be worth putting "sub: not known", or something, so that readers aren't potentially left wondering why Cov had a sub but Sutton didn't......
    None of the sources indicate that Sutton had a named substitute. I'm not even sure we can assume there was one, can we? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point about the lack of sources, although as someone old enough to have been a regular match attendee in the season in question, I can't really think of any plausible reason why any team would *not* have had a named substitute..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's akin to trying to prove a negative. Unless I can find a source with a named sub (which will fix the issue!) we really don't know... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru any thoughts on this? Got a programme?! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the programme myself, I didn't go to that game thankfully! Although it appears to be reproduced here: [2]. As with most programmes it includes the squads but the actual team sheet would not be known until the day. I assume both teams had two substitutes on the bench, of which Cov used one and Sutton none. My book has the two team sheets and shows the Cov sub that came on too, but doesn't mention any unused subs unfortunately.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the MOTD video clip with Motty mentions Houchen as "one of the subs" but neither lists on the graphic nor mentions the others. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, I have found more info - the unused Sutton sub was Bangs: [3] and seemingly there really was only one sub on the bench for each side, even though there were clearly two subs in the FA Cup matches the previous season. And here he is again, Steve Bangs: [4]. Whether either of those are reliable sources is anyone's guess. Oh, and check this out - everyone's favourite railway nerd Geoff Marshall has something to say on the matter too... Mr Bangs was his PE teacher.[5]  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good research. I wouldn't consider either of those to be RS unfortunately... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was definitely two subs per team in the FA Cup that season. But if the information isn't available re: the unused subs, I'm not sure there's any more you guys can do. I just thought it might confuse people who looked at the article and thought "why did Coventry have a sub available but Sutton didn't?"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may do. I don't know what we can do without reliable sources. Of course I have seen some matches where different numbers of substitutes were available for each side, and it seems in this case there may even be two other "missing" subs. But we can't pin that down. If you can find the rules for the 1988-89 FA Cup which says how many subs each side were allowed, we could add a footnote to that effect I suppose? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just change where it currently says "Substitute:" to "Substitute used:"? At the end of the day, I don't think listing people who didn't play in the match is actually that important, but the above-mentioned change would at least remove the possibility of confusion......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams suggested" - presumably this refers to the Sutton manager? As this is the first time he's been mentioned other than being listed in the match details section, which could easily be overlooked, I would suggest making it clear who he is/was
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Lacey of The Guardian concurred and suggested Sutton" => "David Lacey of The Guardian concurred and suggested that Sutton"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made an appearance on Terry Wogan's chatshow" - I would suggest that chat show is two words, but I'm prepared to be over-ruled......
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the article is about *this* match, I think detailing all of Norwich's scorers in the next round is an unnecessary level of detail
    I don't know, it's two sentences and I've only really mentioned them by name and number of goals. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the two entries under "sources" actually sourcing anything in the article? If not I would say get rid of them. If they are, then cite them at the appropriate point(s).
    Nothing in either, so gone. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got on an initial read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments and for helping out with the kit! I've tried to address your comments, but of course, please do let me know if anything is unsatisfactory or you spot anything else you'd like to see fixed! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Four weeks in and this nomination shows little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless there is more activity here over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 15 April 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
  • The visitors went into the match as strong favourites, a reflection of the gulf in divisions that separated the two teams. - maybe it's wise to put the gulf before this IE they were in Conference/First Division before this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reordered. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • dropped to seventh place by the conclusion of the First Division season. - I don't think the lede actually says where they were prior to this match, so it's difficult to say how much worse they played after the match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the lead doesn't but it's a summary. The main article says "and at that time were in fifth position" to build up that picture. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only issue I really have with this lede, is that it doesn't really get across why we have an article on this match. Sure, it's a giant killing, or at least a match where the lower ranked team won, but I would like to at least hear that the press/other teams/legacy of the match is well defined. I do think an extra quote from the reception would help with this. Specifically the ones from Talksport and the Independent, which really do get across the magnitude of the win. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Talksport quote which seems superlative. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I don't think it's "necessary", but it did really get across the magnitude of the game, which the rest of the lede didn't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • I think I mention this every time, but I'd still like a little sentence explaining what the FA Cup is. A short sentence, saying "The FA Cup, formerly the Football Association Challenge Cup is a knockout association football tournament held annually in the United Kingdom (or England I suppose)." or similar. I think this gives everyone a heads up as to what the article is about, and also isn't overly detailed explaining the nuances of the game, jargon etc. I realise we can click on the FA Cup article, but personally I wouldn't expect someone to have to do this to understand Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In MOS:CUE, we do losing scores like 0–6. I noticed here it is 6–0 loss. I have also seen it done by home/away. The MOS for football (at WP:FOOTY) is more of a template for creating articles than a MOS for things like this. I'm sure you are right, but any ideas if this has been discussed before? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea. It's horses for courses as far as I can tell. If it's clear from the prose (e.g. a 6-0 loss here obviously means the winning team scored 6 and the losing team scored 0) then I don't see it as a problem at all. In fact, I think sticking rigidly to a Winner-Loser format is odd and more difficult to follow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. I do think it's an interesting question though. I realise so long as it is consistent, and doesn't use "followed by a 2-1", it's fine, but there's a few ways to do it (player first, winner first, home team first etc.) that it might be interesting as to what WP:FOOTY actually thinks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5,000–1 against - I know this was a while ago, any ideas if this was a particular bookmaker? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not mentioned in the source where those odds come from. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had assumed as much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "clowned their way through the pre-match warm-up" - I feel this could be broken up to just "clowned", or just outright saying that the players didn't warm up seriously for the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why the quote isn't just fine as it stands. It's a nice piece of pre-match observation that gives a very clear indication from a first-person perspective that the Cov players weren't taking this match seriously enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alf Buksh.[26][27][28][29] - do we need four citations? I realise that you want to use all of the coverage the match has, but the 11v11 source doesn't even have the Sutton players listed, so might not be the highest quality (even if they are generally very good). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the 11v11 one, I think I was using it for crowd but that's in one of the other sources. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitulated - I don't really like this sort of expression. The definition means to surrender or to cease resisting, which isn't exactly true, as they were still trying, but were clearly outplayed. "heavily beaten" would be better in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just removed the gloss and spoken in fact. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I'll take a look at these comments presently. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I think I've addressed/responded to everything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I hope to have something soon. Epicgenius (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Epicgenius: and I hope you're well. Just wondering if you're likely to have time for a review on this one soon? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I will definitely have a look today. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visitors went into the match as strong favourites, a reflection of the gulf in divisions that separated the two teams. - Coventry being the visitors, I assume. This might have been alluded to in the previous sentence.
    I have clarified that Coventry were the away team.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the most famous 'giant-killings' in the competition's history, notable for being one of the few instances when a non-League side defeated a club from the highest tier of English football. - For some reason, I am wary of starting this paragraph with "it", especially when the next sentence also starts with "it". Additionally, when I read "notable for being one of the few instances...", I thought this could probably be condensed, e.g. "and it was one of the few instances...".
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the 1969–70 FA Cup - Would this need to contain a comma afterward, or is it not necessary in British English?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to their opponents, Sutton's players were not professional footballers, and their squad included bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks - I would rephrase "...professional footballers, and their squad..." seems like it would be better off as two thoughts, e.g. "...professional footballers; their squad..." This is hilarious, by the way, with a bunch of clerks, managers, and bricklayers beating professional footballers. Kind of like Lee Vilenski's recent nom about the 22-year-old Chinese newcomer winning a snooker tournament.
    The two points are related, obviously, but I guess it works with a semicolon so Done. I know what you mean about the craziness of this achievement... as a Coventry supporter I didn't enjoy it at the time, but 30+ years on I can certainly enjoy the spectacular achievement here; it is one of the things that makes the FA Cup a special competition.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regular crowd capacity at Sutton's Gander Green Lane ground was around 2,000 but this had been expanded to 8,000 for the cup match - It is not necessary to change anything here, but this seems like a large expansion. How was it accomplished?
    Ooh, it seems you've found an error here. The source says the capacity was increased *by* 2,000 to 8,000, not from 2,000. I've amended with a bit of WP:CALC so that it now says it's a 6,000 to 8,000 increase.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Good thing that was caught, then. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goalscorers Rains and Hanlan made an appearance on Terry Wogan's chat show the following Monday - To me, this seems somewhat out of place with the rest of the paragraph, which is commentary on the match. To make this relevant to the paragraph, what did Rains and Hanlan say?
    I have had a hunt around, but I can't find any clips of the Wogan appearance or details on what happened. I have, however, split the paragraph into a "player-focused" and "media-focused" reactions, with the news that Hanlan took the afternoon off for his Wogan appearance and mention of subsequent media commitments dovetailed in. Hope that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look and the new phrasing looks fine. I just believed it was a little strange to have the paragraph end like that. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In front of Norwich's largest crowd of the season, including around 6,000 visiting supporters - Does that match have a link? Maybe I did not see it.
    No, there is no article for the Norwich–Sutton game and I suspect it wouldn't be considered notable enough to merit one - only a very few individual matches rate their own page. We could, I suppose, include a link to 1988–89 Norwich City F.C. season but it seems a bit tangential to this topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sutton United held the record as - This can probably be simply "Sutton United was".
    Done (although in British English, teams are regarded as plural entities so it's "Sutton United were...")  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally forgot about that. "Sutton United were..." is fine, I was just pointing out how the preceding wording was unnecessarily long. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following year the match was voted as one of the greatest ever FA Cup matches by ESPN viewers. - I would also recommend putting this in active voice.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, mostly minor stuff. I will note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all your points addressed for now, @Epicgenius:. Thanks again for the review and please let us know of anything else you find!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I have looked and can't find any further substantive issues. I'm happy to support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • Worth linking Football Association in "Football Association Challenge Cup"?
  • Coventry City is linked in the fourth paragraph of the background section but is used in the previous paragraph.
  • "this had been expanded to 8,000 for the cup match.[27][16]", not a massive issue but the refs are out of numerical order here.
  • Tony Rains' first name is used in both paragraphs of the match summary, the second usage could probably be dropped.
  • The match report doesn't seem to work for me, is it still active?
  • In the Post-match and Legacy sections, fourth round is capitalised but not in uses prior to this. Is that deliberate?

Not much I can really complain about and the points above are generally very minor. I reviewed this for GA and since then it's had further improvements at this FAC so I'm happy with the article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack I've only gone and fixed all those up, thanks so much (both for this review and the GAN), much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Modussicandi[edit]

  • Do we need a comma after "penalty area" in "Steve Sedgley passed the ball into the Sutton penalty area allowing David Phillips to shoot past an advancing Roffey ..."?
  • "Williams offered a realistic perspective on the game" - "realistic" sounds as though this were Wikipedia's assessment since the source doesn't explicitly say his comments were realistic. Perhaps the text would represent the source more accurately if it just said "Williams admitted that ...".
  • "Luton Town, who played in the Conference Premier" - do we need to know what tier in the pyramid the Conference Premier was at the time? Or is it obvious that they're fifth-tier, too?

These points are obviously minute. I'm happy to support but let me know what you think about the above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi thanks very much for your comments, all have been incorporated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Changing to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 thanks, I've responded, perhaps you could clarify? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 cheers, done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this has sufficient support and source/image reviews, can I raise another collaborative FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 6 May 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/Sutton_United_2–1_Coventry_City_(1989)/archive1&oldid=1021739384"