Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Football League Championship play-off Final/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [1].

2010 Football League Championship play-off Final edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk), The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another step towards that elusive featured topic, for the world's richest association football (soccer) match. This is a joint nomination, most of the hard work was done by Kosack and I tagged along for the ride to hopefully get it up to snuff for FAC. A ding-dong of a game, at least in the first half, and "little old" Blackpool's zenith of glory for 40 years. Both nominators will work tirelessly to assuage reviewers' concerns, as ever, and thanks in advance for all the time and effort everyone puts into the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be used in the WikiCup competition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Images appear to be freely licensed, the only issue is that File:Blackpool vs Cardiff 2010-05-22.svg should indicate the source for the players' positions in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for taking a look so quick. I can provide sources for the image, but where is best to place them? When you say in the image description, do you mean on the page itself or over at Commons where the image is hosted? Kosack (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image description on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Kosack (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Amakuru

  • Route to the final:
    • "level with Leicester City in fifth" - maybe "level on points"? Because obviously they weren't level overall, as they finished higher.
      Would cause a problematic repeat of "points" in the sentence. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cardiff's superior goal difference gave them the advantage over Leicester, and thus they received home advantage in the second leg" - the last part of this doesn't appear to be cited. Also, and this is probably an irrelevant aside, but to a newcomer it might not be clear why being at home in the second leg is an advantage. Some clubs might prefer to race out of the blocks with a home first leg for example and presumably the system doesn't give them that choice?
      I've removed the sentence. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Peter Whittingham who scored" - maybe a comma before "who".
      Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "scoring to double Cardiff's lead in the tie" - maybe a link to Two-legged tie, for those who don't know the meaning of this (and to avoid confusion with Tie (draw).
      Two-legged tie is already linked. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but this is also the first occurrence of the actual word "tie" in the article. I don't know what the solution is, but I feel like some clarification is needed, particularly as this is a term often used for something completely different. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It had already been reworded but I've reworded the only other instance of tie for your delectation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this paragraph says "the tie" five times -might be worth rewording if possible to avoid repetition.
      Reduced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""With the away goals rule not in effect in the Football League play-offs" - needs a cite.
      Yeah, difficult so removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've restored this one with a ref from the EFL which should suffice. Kosack (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • More to follow!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • Giving the locations where the officials hail form seems a bit overkill to me, and other than Mike Jones I'm not sure the localities are even sourced. And it's unclear why the link to Birmingham County Football Association says for Marriner "West Midlands". I guess either remove them (my preference), or else source them and give the correct names for the affiliated county.
      I'm not sure I agree on removing the affiliations as the locations are who the referees are representing rather than just localities. I've added refs for the assistant locations and amended Marriner to Birmingham. I'm not sure of the reason but Marriner is listed as West Midlands in quite a few match reports I can find rather than Birmingham. However, the Premier League website that I added does list him as Birmingham. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing else really in this section. It seems slightly short, but I guess everything else that might go there is covered elsewhere...
  • Pre-match:
    • And actually, following on from the comment above this one, I'm slightly confused now. Because most of this section up to around "when his Queens Park Rangers side lost in extra-time" sounds like "Background" to me. Other than the thing about the anthem, which is pre-match, the detail on previous matches at Wembley and the £5 million reward for being promoted refer to things tha thappened at the start of the season or earlier, which while technically "pre-match" isn't what is usually meant by that term. Maybe just rejig a bit so those bits are in "Background", then you'll probably have two sections of roughly equal length?
      I've reordered the sections to hopefully even this up. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Promotion" is first mentioned in the "Route to the final" section, so probably link it there rather than here.
      Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "£90 million for winning the match and the subsequent promotion to the Premier League" - my understanding is that this isn't money directly earned by the promotion, but perhaps a combination of that and increased TV money etc, which is described at 1993 Football League First Division play-off Final as "increases in matchday, commercial and broadcasting income". Might be worth clarifying this here.
      Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 27: Probably not a controversial fact, but the Daily Express shouldn't really be used for sourcing per WP:RSP#Daily Express. The main point, that the anthem was not played, is covered by the Telegraph ref [28], although I suppose the point about "antagonising Cardiff's fans" is not directly covered there...
      Removed the Express and the brief part it covered. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "set to be shared among the players" - you could lose the "set" here, we already know the pay-out was conditional.
      Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "commenting "if anyone deserves it..." - maybe "commenting that"?
      Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "extra-time": other places in the article say "extra time". Make consistent.
      Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cardiff kept their team hotel location secret in order to avoid any attempts of a retaliation attempt by fans of Queens Park Rangers following an incident prior to the 2003 play-off final when the two sides met in which a Cardiff fan was arrested after triggering a false fire alarm call at the Rangers' team hotel during the night prior to the match" - this is a very long sentence, without even a comma to break it up! Consider rewording a little to break it up.
      Split. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If it goes off, it goes off; but I think there is enough security there" - since a whole sentence is quoted here (and indeed part of the previous sentence), I think that maywebe the full stop should be inside the quote rather than outside it, per MOS:LQ.
      Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's it for now, more to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Finished up all these points, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary:
    • "Cardiff kicked off the match" - is it cited, that Cardiff were the team to kick-off? Not seeing that in the BBC source, but maybe I missed it somewhere!
      Added source. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They began the match as the more attacking of the teams" - the previous sentence also says "the match"; slightly repetitive.
      Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, four minutes later" - not sure "However" is really needed here. Or perhaps it would work better as an infix - "Four minutes later, however, ..." Dunno, it just sounds slightly odd at present.
      Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was adjudged to have deliberately handled the ball by Marriner, the referee" - we already know Marriner is the referee. Maybe "was adjudged by Marriner to have deliberately handled the ball"?
      Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who had scored the winning penalty in the first leg of the play-off semi-final" - just wondering if this is really relevant here? We did already note that he scored that penalty in the earlier section, and penalties and free-kicks aren't the same thing...
      Removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Blackpool were able to establish themselves in the game" - probably just splitting hairs here, but given that they already scored an equalising goal, hadn't they already "established themselves"?
      Reworded. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... as Cardiff adjusted to the change, as Stephen Crainey ..." - repetition of "as"
      Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details:
    • Just wondering if the formation of the players on the field is cited?
      The image file has three citations attached to it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto the "match rules"
      Added a source for the extra-time etc. Not sure how to reference the number of substitutes other than perhaps the fact the match reports show how many were named? Is that necessary? Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's fine - it's a very minor point anyway, and that report will be adequate. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-match:
    • "to around 16,000" - according to the source, the exact figure is 16,750, which is closer to 17,000 than 16,000. Could just give the exact figure.
      Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Emmanuel-Thomas and the unnamed player would accept a lower payout" - better as just "Emmanuel-Thomas and the unnamed player accepted a lower payout..." I think
      Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • "two places above in fourth" - maybe "above them" instead of just "above"?
      Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in front of more than 82,000 spectators" - might as well state the exact number, since it is known.
      Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in normal time" - this kind of feels like it needs a link, in case readers don't know what "normal time" means. Not sure how mind you, as normal time itself is a redlink. Something to think about anyway.
      Added to glossary. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "just over 16,000" - per the above point, the figure is closer to 17,000 than 16,000. Also, if the body says "around 16,000" then the lead can't really say "just over", because those are slightly different things.
    • That's about it, I think!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I've done most of the trivial stuff, Kosack I've left the hard ones! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finished up the last few. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy turnaround, guys. It looks up to snuff to me now, so happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski cheers, much appreciated, I've addressed all bar one issue above which I've asked Kosack to comment on/address. Many thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I'm done on the second set, thanks very much. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski hey dude, have we addressed your concerns? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will try to get to this tomorrow, will likely be claimed in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's some minor formatting inconsistencies. For instance, BBC Sport is not linked in ref 9, but it's linked in about all the other instances.
    Linked ref 9. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a location for the Saunders book?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with most of these sources, but not with Soccerbase or the Football Club History Database. The latter appears to be self-published. Soccerbase looks to be a sports betting site. What makes either of these high-quality RS?
    These two were recently addressed at another FAC HERE, and I believe they are both widely used and well regarded sources. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • "Cardiff kept their team hotel location secret in order to avoid any attempts of a retaliation attempt by fans of Queens Park Rangers. This followed an incident prior to the 2003 play-off final when the two sides met in which a Cardiff fan was arrested after triggering a false fire alarm call at the Rangers' team hotel during the night prior to the match." - Checks out
  • "The referee for the match was Andre Marriner (Birmingham)" - Checks out
  • "With just over 20 minutes to play, Cardiff were awarded a penalty, which Whittingham scored to level the aggregate score again at 3–3" - Checks out
  • The match rules from the report - Source doesn't mention the substitutes
  • " Blackpool midfielder Keith Southern was named man of the match" - Checks out
  • "The 2009–10 Championship title was won by Newcastle United with 102 points, returning to the Premier League one season after being relegated" - The 102 points isn't mentioned in the source, but it's cited in the table, so it's alright, I guess
  • "Cardiff City finished fourth in the Championship, three points behind Nottingham Forest and level on points with Leicester City in fifth" - Checks out

Pretty confident that the article well follows the sources. Hog Farm Bacon 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've added comments to the first points. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with Soccerbase and the database then, although I would like to know if I missed something or if there was an error on the match report query from part two. Hog Farm Bacon 17:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops missed that one. The substitutes is an awkward one as those are pretty basic rules. Other than the match report showing that the teams named seven, I'm struggling to find a source that explicitly states it. Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch that, managed to find a source that does state it. Kosack (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm thanks very much for your help, I think this is "oven ready" @WP:FAC coordinators: . Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looks all in order on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any deal-breakers prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cas. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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/2010_Football_League_Championship_play-off_Final/archive1&oldid=986131336"