Jump to content

Talk:2022 EFL Championship play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2022 EFL Championship play-off final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2023Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
January 22, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 3, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Nottingham Forest's victory in the 2022 EFL Championship play-off final gained them promotion to the Premier League for the first time in 23 years?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 EFL Championship play-off final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 09:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, I'm just a passerby user. This is just a ping the let you know this review has been up for around 2 months with no comments. Are you still planning to review this? Sparkltalk 20:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkl and The Rambling Man: oh, sorry it had totally slipped my mind. I'll hopefully get to it in the next few days. Cheers and thanks for the reminder.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: It looks like you forgot about this again. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Play-offs link is WP:EGGed to English Football League for some reason
  • Huddersfield Town, Huddersfield Town, Huddersfield. Would suggest we either say "Huddersfield Town" only on first mention and then consistently "Huddersfield" thereafter, or use the full name throughout.
  • The sentence beginning "Luton Town dominated the first half..." seems slightly long. Consider breaking it into two.
  • "Brice Samba, the Nottingham Forest goalkeeper, who had made a number of saves during regular and extra time, denied three of the Sheffield United penalty-takers..." - a minor point, but isn't it normal for keepers to make saves during games? Was there something exceptional about the goalkeeper's performance during regular and extra time?
  • Link pitch invasion
  • "This was Huddersfield Town's sixth appearance in a play-off final, most recently in the 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final" - doesn't quite scan correctly. "Appearance" is a noun, while "recently" is an adverb. Should be "their most recent being..." or something like that.
  • "This was Huddersfield Town's sixth appearance..." and "This was also Huddersfield Town's most recent appearance..." - if I've understood this correctly, the "this" refers to different things in these two sentences, the first the 2022 final, and the second the 2017 final. It could also be confused as saying that the 2022 final was Huddersfield's most recent appearance at Wembley as of now, which is probably true, but I doubt it's what you meant. Suggest "That match" or similar for the second one.
  • "have played in the second tier of English football since the 2019–20 season" - not sure what the correct process is here, but this is a statement which is true now but may not be true in future, and someone will have to remember to edit it if Huddersfield get promoted or relegated in the coming years. Might be best to either use an {{as of}} template or rephrase it as "had played in the second tier..."
  • "Nottingham Forest will be playing in their first play-off final" - tense issue
  • "They have played in the Championship" - also needs a "had"
  • "fourteen seasons" - maybe "consecutive seasons"? I suppose technically they never played in the Championship before that, as it had a different name, but still...
  • "They last played at the top tier of English football" - had
  • "The final was Forest's first appearance" - a stray Forest in a sea of Nottingham Forests
  • "Two early fouls from Joe Worrall both resulted in free kicks, neither of which threatened the Nottingham Forest goal" - maybe clarify that Worrall plays for Huddersfield; it seems slightly odd to infer this information purely from the "Nottingham Forest" at the end of the sentence
  • "ended in indecision" - this sounds more like an opinion than an objective fact. Source says "I think he got caught between shooting and crossing" which expresses some doubt; annoyingly it's also not clear what the outcome was...
  • "Toffolo was booked for what the referee perceived as a dive" - earlier this incident was called a "foul", which suggests that the referee didn't realise it was a dive and it was VAR that made that determination?
  • "despite claims for a penalty, the referee declined to award it" - no VAR on this one?
  • Post-match section - you'd want to expand this a bit at an FAC run, but adequate here.

@The Rambling Man, Sparkl, and Armbrust: - that's all I have on the review. Will have a quick look at sourcing once these points are looked at, but seems good so far. Really sorry for forgetting about this one twice and leaving it hanging for three months! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Are you going to do this review? Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no deadline. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said no deadline. Why has this been failed? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: it hasn't been failed, I suspect the note on your talk page was because I've moved the article, talk page and the GA sub-page (along with other play-off finals) to use lowercase "final" instead of "Final", following similar moves at 1930 FIFA World Cup final etc. And maybe the bot got confused by that. Anyway, no hurry on this from my end, take your time, let me know when you've had a chance to have a look and hope all's well with you and yours. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth a quick ping to Mike Christie. Looks like the bot fails articles if the page is moved. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just saw that; thanks for the ping. Internally that's exactly what's happening -- it "fails" the review under the old name, and creates a record of a review under the new name. However, if I can detect that this is what's happening I can avoid leaving a notification for the nominator, and then the "fail" will be invisible. I'll add it to the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as ever for the good work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

Amakuru, The Rambling Man, where does this nomination stand? While it took nearly three months to get a review, there hasn't been a single edit made to the article by the nominator since then. May I suggest that if there isn't significant progress in the next week or so—say, by February 18, six months from the date the review was opened—it should be closed. It can always be renominated once the issues have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent contributions it looks like TRM took his ball and went home, so this should be closed. Wizardman 03:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Came across this languishing, and have responded to the issues raised on behalf of the nominators. Let me know what you think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: thanks that's great, I'll have another pass in the next day or two. I had wondered about fixing the issues myself, but then I wouldn't be the GA reviewer if I was also the person doing the fixes too.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Any chance you can take another look at this? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias and The Rambling Man: apologies for (yet another) delay here. I've had a look at the fixes you've applied and all looks good to me now. Happy to pass this nom and promote the article to GA status. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: you're a legend, thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 17:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2022 EFL Championship play-off final; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Recent GA, long enough, not previously on front page, well-sourced, neutral, Copyvio check fine, hook is sourced and interesting, QPQ done. All looks good to me. Riley1012 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_EFL_Championship_play-off_final&oldid=1203431638"