Talk:1904 FA Cup final/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Add a caption to the infobox image if possible.--WillC 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review

Lead

- Infobox
  - Besides adding a caption, change "23 April 1904" to "April 23, 1904". It reads and looks better. Also, you may just want to create the template you are using for future reference. Having all that code in there just makes it cluttered.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard way to write a date in British English. See also Wikipedia:DATE#Dates.

Okay, good.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Prose
  - "The 1904 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City on 23 April 1904 at Crystal Palace in London." → "The 1904 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City on April 23, 1904 at the Crystal Palace in London."--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "and the tenth at Crystal Palace." → "and the tenth at the Crystal Palace."--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace is the name of a stadium, This would be like putting "and the tenth at the Wembley".

Adding "the" makes it read and flow better. In my research to see if "the" is ever used before Crystal Palace, I see quite a few.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be because of The Crystal Palace, the huge Victorian glass building which gave its name to that particular area of south-west London. Indeed using the definite article would make it more likely that readers would confuse the two. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - After reading the lead, I have begun to wonder "is this article notable?". I understand it was the final of a tournament it seems, but none the less it was still just a soccer game. Wouldn't it be better to merge this with something? I don't see how this is notable at the moment. The refs should establish notability yes, but still wondering why?--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world, and one of the most prestigious. The FA Cup Final is to English club football what the Super Bowl is to American football teams. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Build-up

"Bolton reached the final in 1894, but were beaten comfortably by Notts County, losing 4–1 at Goodison Park despite a strong performance by goalkeeper John Sutcliffe." Too much info that is cluttering the point. Change to "Bolton reached the final in 1894, but were beaten 4–1 at Goodison Park by Notts County."--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intention here is to show that the defeat would have been heavier still, had the goalkeeper not performed so well.

"In their passage to the final Manchester City faced opposition from the top division in all but one round, the exception Woolwich Arsenal in the second round." What? Maybe it is just me but I had to read this a few times, before I understood the meaning. I don't know what to change it too, but it is a bit too cluttered and just confusing to me. I guess because I don't follow soccer.--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split and reworded.

"Though Lancashire was a football stronghold in the early years of the professional game, providing a large proportion of Football League teams, the cup final had never been contested between two Lancashire clubs until the 1904 final." Source?--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added.

"Both teams played 2-3-5, the standard formation of the period." What? I've seen alot of in-universe writing styles. The article is mainly wrote only for soccer fans, and not for everyone. You should explain the information that you would think a non-fan would not understand.--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory wikilink added.

Match

- Fine--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Match details

Delink April 23, 1904, supposed to be against datelinking.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Is this the agreed upon format? It seems to me could use some changing. A bit sloppy in my eyes.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what manner? Some details which may be included in other similar articles would be anachronous here. For example, shirt numbers were not introduced until 1933. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the layout seems sloppy. A table or something along those lines may make it a bit more organized. That may just be me though.--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

Seems fine prose wise, but the second paragraph as more to do with aftermath, than reaction to the match. Making that parts its own section would be good.--WillC 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the section to "post-match" c.f. the featured 1956 FA Cup Final. Seems preferable to single paragraph sections. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

26, 27, and 28 fo not have publishers. Everything seems to be either a book, an article, etc for a seemingly reliable source. I see no problem here.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Seems fine.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]