Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 FA Cup Final/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2021 [1].

2019 FA Cup Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2019 running of the oldest association football cup competition in the world. Hopefully even non-experts will be able to negotiate their way through it and perhaps even learn something. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I will be reviewing this shortly. I consider myself a stereotypical Canadian: hockey is the greatest sport in the world and soccer (or "football" as my European-ex will try to inform me) is boring (sorry). I think I am typical of Wikipedia's non-expert audience because I understand or can deduce the meaning of basic sports terms (penalty, shoot, goal etc.) but specialized terms will need more explanation for me. I mention this because I have been reading this non-expert terminology discussion for a couple of weeks (spread over many, many FACs and talk pages) and I want the nominator and the FAC coordinators to understand my knowledge and perspective for this review. My opinion is an article should define or explain uncommon terms so that a competent reader can figure out what the word means, and if the reader wants more specialized information they can click on the wikilink and go down a wiki rabbit hole. I am happy to clarify these thoughts or answer questions on the FAC's talk page.

For now, I'll only review the lede (mostly because I'm at work and should probably be doing my job.) TRM, can you look at my comments below and let me know if it is helpful for your nomination? If it is, I will continue reviewing. If TRM or anyone else has concerns I will pause the review and we can discuss on the talk page how best to proceed.

Lede

I look forward to your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 you're welcome to continue to review the article, it looks like there's going to be a lot of wording issues, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 please also note that just today the 1987 FA Cup Final article was passed to FA, so if the standards which need to be applied are drastically different from that article, we might as well call it a day. As noted before, I got my seven-year-old son to read this and other such articles and they didn't need further explanations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Please feel free to disagree with my suggestions; it happens all the time! Just let me know why and we can figure out the best wording.
I do not know your son's knowledge about soccer, but I know that at seven-year-old I knew lots of hockey terms that a non-hockey adult would consider jargon (two-line pass, to deke, hat-trick, etc.) If I nominated a hockey article and said, "The player stickhandled the puck, deked the goalie and scored a hat-trick" I would probably be told to change it, even though seven-year-old me has said that exact sentence. All I can promise is that I will highlight terminology I do not understand and I will offer suggestions on alternative wording. I'll take a look at 1987 FA Cup Final later to help guide my review. I added some comments to your responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm bemused as to why it always seems to be my FACs which are attracting so much attention of this nature. But I appreciate any time you spend looking at the article. I can't promise that I can agree to make your suggested changes simply because (as above) some of them just aren't going to work using correct football terminology. Problem is, if you're having difficulty with phrases like "side-footing the ball" which is simply using the side of one's foot to kick the ball, I'm concerned the article will be reduced to something which is more suited for Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to reduce the language to Simple English either, that would be too far. I also want the language to be understandable to someone like me, an adult who has little interest in soccer. In other words, we need something in the middle of "simple language" and "technical language". I hope I will assess your article similarly to other FACs, and if I am not please call me out (however, you will see in other FACs that I leave LOTS of suggestions) I know I will make lots of mistakes in understanding terms, so please give a quick definition if I get it wrong. For example, with "side-footing the ball", I posted what I thought the word meant when I read it in the article. Hopefully, this will help you judge what a non-expert will think the word means and decide if the prose needs to be changed. If a word was accepted as non-technical in the 1987 FA Cup Final article, please let me know. I leave the ultimate judgment to you on what needs to be defined because you are the article's nominator (although I will say when I disagree with you if I strongly encourage a change).
As for why your FACs are attracting the attention of this nature: I agree, your articles have attracted lots of this attention and I will try to be mindful of that during this review. I'm not actively looking for terminology problems; I'm reviewing prose in general and will point out terminology problems as part of prose concerns. If I don't understand something, I will post it and we can discuss changes if they are needed. I will continue the review later, as I am still at work, but let me know if you have any questions or concerns before I continue. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be my guest. It would be great if some of the highly technical legal or paleontological articles got this level of attention. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City

Watford

Background

First half

I will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second half

Details and Statistics

  • No concerns

Post-match

Those are all my prose comments! After TRM's check I will do another prose readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've addressed/responded to all your comments inline, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added non-breaking spaces to a couple dates. This makes the text easier to read for users on a smaller screen, like a smartphone, and was taught to me by a GOCE member. Please revert if it was unhelpful.
After reading the article again, I can give my support to this FAC based on prose. Congrats and let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No problem with the non-breaking spaces. MOS doesn't seem to give rigid guidance on it, it probably should because obviously where the spaces break will be different for absolutely everyone, so one imagines either all of them (in prose, at least) should be non-breaking, or none of them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no MOS guidance, but I think it should be used if it is helpful. Its inclusion is never mandatory for my support and I'm happy to add it myself to improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
I don't think so - probably fine as is. ~ HAL333 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Nice work. I hope you don't mind that I archived two of the sources. ~ HAL333 23:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 thanks for your comments, and of course archiving the two sources was helpful, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

A few minor points from an initial run through on my part. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack cheers, all addressed bar Belle Voci, see above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link at the first mention of Watford too as I missed that. All of my comments have been addressed, happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

TRM, I'm glad your disagreements with other users (on linking and such) has not prevented you from bringing you consistently high-quality work to FAC. I'm looking at this right now. Aza24 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
Reliability
  • No doubts here, all information is from reputable, high quality, news sources—otherwise it is statistical information from well established websites
Verifiability
  • I've spotchecked this nominator before and have no doubts. Happy to do so again if requested by coords.
  • Over all just a lot of small, mostly typographical, errors; nothing major. Aza24 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about those, a lot I inherited and clearly didn't check well enough. Thanks for picking them up. As for nominating again, well it's random isn't it? Last nom promoted with three supports, previous one "failed to gain consensus" with nine supports. And we wonder why this place is failing.... Never mind, cheers for the review, very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the reliabillity and verifiability concerns are covered enough to make these minor in comparison—but yes, sometimes the process can be random, usually things go OK though, and I suppose that's the best we can ask for. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

With that said, the image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. My second image review! Why remove the italics? Where's the guidance on that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, that isn't common practice for "pictured in _____" bits and tends to be reserved for mentions for the titles of works like magazines, newspapers, TV shows, films, or anything else that has its name italicized. Either way, I somehow never noticed how buidhe assessed the licensing already. Oh well. Mine goes into further detail. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always used italics, and I can't see any policy/guideline saying I shouldn't, right? (For an example of this usage, see the blurbs on the main page)... (see also: 2018 FA Cup Final promoted a few weeks back). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I also previously forgot to mention that I support this nomination and don't feel those captions are enough to keep the page from becoming FA regardless. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this now has four supports and no outstanding comments to address, can I nominate another solo FAC please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I think we had this conversation before and it was resolved but can you point me to where the national allegiances of the players are cited under Details? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question really should be "is the use of those flags compliant with MOS:FLAG?" before we even worry about sourcing, and I think the answer is no, so de-flagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This has been discussed a lot of times at WT:FOOTY, and considering the multinational nature of club football nowadays and that it is often brought up that "player X is the Nth Fooian to win competition Y", adding a flag to each player is no big deal. And if it helps, here's a source that adds flags with no context: https://www.11v11.com/matches/manchester-city-v-watford-18-may-2019-362301/ – PeeJay 19:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. There is no critical commentary in this article about the nationalities of those involved. There is no reliable source for the nationality of each player. That other websites use flags is of no relevance. These flags were being used purely decoratively. The place to include the flags is the club article or the season article where there may (but almost certainly is not) some critical commentary about the "multinational nature" of football. This article is most definitely not the place to do it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, that link I provided is a reliable source for the nationality of each player, and who cares if there's no critical commentary about their nationalities? It proves that the national make-up of club sides is important enough to be noted by other sources, and hence by us too. The flags aren't decorative, they're informative. Cheers! – PeeJay 19:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no critical commentary, their nationalities is irrelevant to this particular article. Stop edit warring. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just leave them there because there doesn't need to be any critical commentary and your suggestion that there does is completely asinine? – PeeJay 19:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gross personal attack aside, have you read MOS:FLAG by the way? E.g. the bit which says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." and the bit which says "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag," and the section which is called "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", e.g. in this example? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually know what a personal attack is? I didn't criticise you, I criticised your nonsense notion that we need to make a critical evaluation of each team's national make-up in order to even mention anyone's nationality. – PeeJay 20:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Describing my suggestion as "asinine" and now "nonsense" is a personal attack. Now, answer the question about compliance with MOS:FLAG please, that's what we're here for, not to just deal with yet more of your insults. And we need to make a critical evaluation of each team's national make-up in order to even mention anyone's nationality no, that's completely false. I said we didn't need flags. We can mention the nationalities in the prose, but since it has nothing to do with this match (i.e. it matters not one iota where the players are from unless it forms part of the critical commentary) and because the implementation currently breaches MOS, it shouldn't be done this way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really don't think you know what a personal attack is. Again, I was criticising your suggestion, not you yourself. Don't play the victim card, it's not necessary. – PeeJay 20:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you to stop bullying me and directly labelling my words as "asinine" or "nonsense". You haven't responded to the MOS issue. This is a waste of my time, I'm done with you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to derail the discussion with spurious accusations of personal attacks then. Good grief! – PeeJay 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose apologies for this. There's now a source indicating the nationalities of the players, as the user above edit-warred to restore the flags despite my belief that they contravene MOS:FLAG both in general and specifically in implementation. I'm not interested in continuing the interaction with said user and their personal attacks but the reference is there now. Let me know how you'd like to proceed? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a note which explains how the flags (which aren't explained) are decided upon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose that's been resolved now. Anything else? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, honestly thought I replied before but I see it didn't save. Away couple of days, check then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose another week goes by, I see you've looked at various other FACs, not this one? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was starting my efforts today from towards the bottom of the list and working up but it has been longer than I'd planned, yes... The new note seems helpful but dare I ask what the supporting source is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a bit absurd really, I'm chasing my tail. I'll remove the note, the flags are supported by flags in the reliable source. I'm not getting involved with that again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
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/2019_FA_Cup_Final/archive1&oldid=1017125913"