Wikipedia:Peer review/1923 FA Cup Final/archive1

1923 FA Cup Final

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not 100% convinced this article is quite of FA standard (although feel free to disagree :-) ), but is certainly a potential GA. Nonetheless I'd like to know what little tweaks I might still need to do.....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will give this a proper review when I have the time (which I'm afraid could be a while). But I just thought I'd let you know that I have an old video about the history of the F.A cup final, where they talk for a about 10 mins about the crowd problems. So I could add in some info from that if you wanted. BUC (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've watched it again. It's achally more like 5 mins and the only thing in it of any major use is interviews with two men who were spectators at the match. BUC (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, it must indeed be an old video then! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've put the two quote from the interviews into my sandbox. See what you think. BUC (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that - I've added one in and taken the liberty of correcting what appeared to be a couple of typos. Don't suppose you have the name of the director of the programme, to complete the citation template.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Graham Wellham, Paul Armstrong and Tony Pastor. BUC (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added in what I think is useful. BUC (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead could do with a bit more just so that it cover everything in the article.
  • Think it covers all the main points, feel free to point out anything you feel is missing
    • Looks a bit better now. BUC (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• The tables in the "Route to the final" section look really ugly. The Bolton one is ok but why is the West Ham one lower down? it's cutting into the next section.
  • A slightly perplexing comment given that it was yourself that put them into the current format. Also, I don't understand what you mean when you describe the West Ham one as "look down" - what does this mean?
    • Yeah but I still don't like it. BUC (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The tables are so placed because they each sit alongside the paragraph about the relevant team's route to the final. After a re-jigging of the paragraphs the table no longer cuts into subsequent sections (at least not in my browser)....
• "by the time officers arrived there was little they could do" why not?
  • Done
• "it is likely the match would have been abandoned" a bit POV.
  • It's exactly what the source says.....
    • Is it a quote then? BUC (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've reviewed the source and rewritten accordingly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• First sentence of the "Match" seems more suited to the "Build-up" section.
  • Changed
• "Watson missed another good scoring opportunity when he misjudged a kick" how did this make him miss the opportunity?
  • Reworded
• "Dick Pym initially fumbled the ball but managed to save it at the second attempt" I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Are you talking about the shot from the last sentence? If he didn't save it the first time how come it didn't in the goal?
  • Yes, it is the shot from the previous sentence. He fumbled the shot but then recovered and got to it before it went in - I've reworded it slightly, hope it is clearer.....
• "Details" section has no ref.
  • Put ref in in what seemed the most appropriate place
• "Oswald Mosley was chastised for characterising the fans" who chastised him?
  • Noted
• The third paragraph of the "Aftermath" section reads a bit like a list.
  • Re-jigged a bit, hope it looks better now
• Just a seggestion but the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section could go under the sub-section title "legacy"
  • Done
• Other than the first sentence of the article, there is no mention of this match being known as "the white horse final".
  • Added it into the "legacy" section
• Shouldn't the refs that use articles on findarticles.com mention the site they are on as well as the paper they were originally in?
  • I dunno, I've seen many other articles which use findarticles and give only the original paper in the ref, so I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule. I'll see what other people think on this issue.....

BUC (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok I've given this another read through and I can't see any reason why this shouldn't become at least a GA and maybe even a FA. BUC (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

• "The 1923 FA Cup Final, (also known as The White Horse Final)," I don't think the brackets are needed.
  • Done - someone else put the brackets in and I hadn't noticed
• "Bolton had appeared in the final once before, in 1894," perhaps wikilink the 1894 Final.
  • Done
• The "Route to the Final" section looks messy with the two boxes creating an ugly white space. Unless this section is expanded, I would suggest moving one box to the left hand side.
  • Done. I wasn't actually seeing any whitespace in my browser, but hopefully the change will rectify the problem for those who were
• "The gross gate money for the match was £27,776, of which each team and the Football Association took £6,365," What happened to the rest of the share?
  • Sorted

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cheers!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)