Wikipedia:Peer review/1900 FA Cup Final/archive1

1900 FA Cup Final[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it at WP:FAC in the near future. I haven't done an FAC nom before and I agree with advice I've been given that a PR is a useful preliminary. This means I would appreciate any and all suggestions about how to improve the article for FAC purposes plus any tips that will help me in the FAC nomination and review processes, such as presentation there.

The article was thoroughly reviewed by Harrias at GAN last month and promoted. Yesterday, it was included in DYK so the logical next step is FAC. Since the GA review was completed, I've done a fair bit of fine-tuning, much of this based on similar articles which have also been reviewed. A bit more content has been added, mostly derived from contemporary reports in The Times after Harrias suggested reference to its report of the final match.

I'll be more than pleased with all feedback you can provide. Thank you in advance. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And please consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Sources

As promised, I found a couple of Guardian/Observer sources which could be incorporated if they provide information above and beyond that which is already there:

More soon (hopefully) via other methods, from the British Newspaper Archive. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be heaps of stuff on the BNA, and I can grab PDFs as and when required. Let me know. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random thoughts on the article

The match report must be expanded, and I have plenty of contemperaneous sources to assist in that. Happy to do it myself or try to forward (per above) to you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think this is the main issue because of inadequate sources. The Times, for example, is more interested in the presentation than the match. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The route to the final could be expanded a little to embellish the match reports, again the sources will help with that.

Agreed, if the information can be found in other sources. The Times tends to give just a result only. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel the Route to the final tables are a little too wide, especially in the Bury section with the photo it crushes the text hard-left.

I think that came about because I needed to widen the tables in one of the sister articles and then used that format in all of them. These two have been narrowed and are okay. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a key is needed for those position acronyms.

Good idea. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one: what's the source for the kit each team wore?

Difficult. See below. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some overlinking: Crystal Palace, Ernest Arnfield, Sheffield United.

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider linked £sd.

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TRM. This is great and much appreciated. I'll have to set it aside for now because I'm very busy but will deal with the improvements you've suggested as soon as I can. Re your first point, I'd be more than happy for yo9u to work on the article if you have time and you would like to do so, but please don't feel obligated. The Guardian pieces are very good because they focus more on the match than the Times which always emphasises the event. Thanks again and I hope to be able to get back to this soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker no problem at all. Take your time, there's no deadline to any of this, ping me when you get some more time and I'll swing by and pick it up again with the BNA sources to boot. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TRM. I'll read the Guardian clippings again today and work additional content into the article as appropriate. I like all of your suggestions above and I'll action those too – this is much appreciated.

I do have a problem with the kits, however, because the only source I know of is the one that had been cited in the article when I first came across it – Historical Kits – but I don't consider that to be a reliable source and I suppressed it. I see that other articles have no kit source too so assumed it was okay to go without one as the colours shown are the traditional club kits. I didn't have this problem at the 1903 final because there was a minor controversy about clash of shirts and Derby had to change, so that was reported; and the same for the Sheffield United v Southampton final where one changed for the final and the other for the replay. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to work on this now? I can add some more comments if you're ready. Also, I can get you copies of loads of reports from the BNA, but I'd need to email them to you as they're PDFs. If you up for that, by all means drop me a line using the "Email this user" option in the toolbox from my user page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

I'll leave content and sourcing to those who know the area, and focus on making sure a non-football reader can understand the article :) See my advice at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content about avoiding jargon.

Might you say more about the actual match in the lead (to entice the reader to read on ... )

H'm, not really sure if expanding the lead is really feasible because it could easily lead to being over-detailed. I've added a sentence about the presentation, though. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means: only five points clear of the relegation placings.

Good point and, as TRM says below, needs the promotion and relegation link there. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto (jargon, I don't know what this is saying): In the first round on Saturday, 27 January, Bury were drawn away to Burnley, who were relegated at the end of the 1899–1900 league season.

The draw in this sense, as TRM says below, is a bit like a lottery in that numbers are pulled out of a bag to determine who plays who in the next round of the competition, each team being allocated a unique number. I don't think we can usefully link the term to anything and it would be wrong to even try and replace it as it is so commonly understood and readily used in GB. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto ... Bury drew 0–0 away to (need an idea early on what is meant by drawn and drew)

I've applied the Tie (draw) link to the first instances of "draw" and "drew" in that context. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will later start over from the top to see if I can understand football yet ... but at the ripe old age of <censored>, it hasn't happened yet :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep reading after I figure out that part. In terms of MOS, good compliance at everything I usually check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'd normally have a link in there for Promotion and relegation to explain relegation to those readers whose teams play in leagues were no such concept exists. Draw in the sense of a tie is normally linked to Tie (draw), but to be "drawn against" someone in a cup competition is normally an allusion to the drawing of numbers randomly (like in the urn problem) to assign pairs of teams to play one another in a knockout tournament. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review[edit]

Hello, TRM and SandyGeorgia. I'm closing the review because I have decided to quit the site. I'm totally disillusioned and have enough stress in my life without encountering even more of it on here. Besides which, I struggle to find time for the internet. I'd like to thank you both for your help and kindness. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker sorry to hear this, truly. Take some time out and perhaps return should more time become available? In the intervening period, I'll see what I can do to improve the article based on the comments here, ready for your return. All the best, take care. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]