Talk:1874 FA Cup final/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I am the reviewer Sarastro1 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

The article seems to meet most of the GA criteria.

Lead

• "Both finalists had previously reached the final but been defeated by Wanderers, the Engineers in 1872 and Oxford in 1873" seems a little clumsy. It uses "finalists" and "finals" very close together and it could be a little confusing as to who was defeated by whom.
• "Oxford had defeated two-time former winners Wanderers in the quarter-finals" seems too detailed for the lead unless you add it to the sentence about both finalists being defeated previously.
• "Their opponents, who had spent two weeks training for the match, an innovative concept at the time, were repeatedly thwarted by Charles Nepean, the Oxford goalkeeper and unable to score any goals in reply." Needs a comma after goalkeeper but may be better to use fewer commas in the sentence.

Route to the final

• The use of the nickname "Sappers" may be confusing.
• "the first time a team had ever scored as many as seven goals in an FA Cup match". Is there a single reference you could use for this instead of three results sections? If not, not a big problem.
  • I have not found a source that specifically states this fact, so using all three links is needed
• Would it be better to move the sentence about both teams being beaten finalists to after the sentence where Wanderers were defeated?
• The scores in previous finals might add detail.
  • Seems unnecessary detail to me

Fair enough!--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• You give one date (Jan 28) and no others: it may be better to give all the dates or none, particularly as it says "a month later" after the Jan 28 game, which seems imprecise.
• I'm aware this may not be possible, but some brief context for the teams may help here, for example who they were or where they came from. Some contemporary reaction might help to give context as well, such as what was the reaction to the Wanderers' defeat, or how popular were the games/teams. Which team was the favourite before the game?
  • The article states where the teams came from (Oxford and Chatham), that the RE represented a British army regiment, and talks a bit about the players who were (and weren't) selected. I don't have much beyond that. Sources do not record who the favourites were, or the public reaction. In the early days of football, press coverage was very scarce and only reported the events of the match itself
• An explanation of The Oval being used, compared to Wembley today, and its main use as a cricket ground may provide context, either for this section or for the match section.

Match

• "Military team" may be confusing if someone doesn't know that the Engineers were a military team.
• "Unbeknownst" does not seem a suitable word to use in this article: it seems a little archaic.
• Is the reference for teams needing to appeal a goal included in with the reference for no-one knowing why the players didn't appeal?
  • Yes. Page can be scanned and photobucketed if required

No need for that. Maybe if someone was very pedantic, they might want both sentences referenced, but I'm OK with it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Sappers" again. It needs explaining, at least.
• "Making up for defeat." Is this from a book? It needs clarifying who believed it made up for the defeat.
• The link to the match report gives a few details from the match which are not in the article, including context.
  • The reliability of the info on that site is questionable (for example, they have the score of the 1873 final wrong!) so I have removed it. It is also not considered a reliable source by the WP:FOOTY project. I have added a bit more in from the book, however.

That's fine. If it's unreliable, best not to list it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Attendance: The same link gives the attendance at 2,000 but The Times report which is on the same page gives the attendance at 5,000. Do we know which is correct? Was this a good attendance?
  • All other sources list 2,000, including other contemporary newspapers, so I would presume this was correct. The Times' correspondent was probably just taking a guess. The attendance was comparable with the previous two finals. At the time attendances were not usually recorded, so we have nothing else to compare against.

OK, but I like your comparison to previous final as it gives context.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Post match

• Again, this may not be possible, but do we know anything about press reaction or public reaction? This section seems a bit brief. Are there any details about what the teams did afterwards?
  • Nothing on any of the above is recorded. Found a bit more to add in, though

More detail would be good, but obviously only if it exists! Again, I like your expansion and the fact about Goodwyn fits in well.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• "As was the norm" again seems archaic and should be made plainer. How long was this the case?

References

• Rather than "General" and "Specific", it would be better to have References and a Bibliography.
  • I was following the format of the articles on the previous two finals, both of which are GAs. I'm not fussed either way.

My preference is for bibliography, but no problem with this format if it is preferred.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

External links

• "Line-ups" seems to be broken.

Correction. It is working now, but wasn't earlier.--Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than these issues, the article seems fine. If the issues can be fixed and a little more context given to the article, I will pass it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All done, or comments made above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm passing the article. Congratulations.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)