Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2021 [1].

Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977) edit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC), The Rambling Man[reply]

This article is about a dramatic football match which took place at the end of the 1976-77 season in English football's top division. Both of the two teams were in danger of being relegated down to the second division, along with Sunderland, who were playing a simultaneous match up at Everton. Well, almost simultaneous... due to traffic congestion the Coventry game started late, which meant it ended up finishing five minutes later that the Sunderland game. And because Sunderland lost their game (a result the Coventry chairman displayed prominently on the scoreboard for the players to see), Coventry and Bristol both knew that the 2-2 draw was enough for them both to survive. So they spent the last five minutes in a "good-natured kickabout", leaving Sunderland relegated. And their fans are still livid about it 44 years later!

This is a co-nom between myself and The Rambling Man, and we'll endeavour to fix any issues you guys find in a speedy fashion. Thanks in advance for your time.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

Support from ChrisTheDude edit

Comments
  • "the kick-off was delayed by five minutes" - might be worth making it 100% clear which of the two matches was delayed
    OK, done, although the "Bristol City supporters being delayed in traffic" would tend to suggest it was this game, unless they were all on their way to Goodison!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But Bristol City then scored" => "Bristol City then scored, however,"
    I've removed the but/however altogether, it probably isn't necessary anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both Coventry and Bristol City to survive" - "survive" seems ever-so-slightly journalese-y. Maybe "avoid relegation"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the club's supporters believed Coventry" => " the club's supporters believed that Coventry"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against Leeds United, featuring new signings Terry Yorath, Ian Wallace and Bobby McDonald" - maybe reword to clarify that these were Cov's new signings, not Leeds
    Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "left Bristol City needing only one point" - as it hasn't been mentioned that a draw is worth one point, maybe just say "needing a draw"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last-day relegation fight in 1977" - last two words really needed?
    I guess not. Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The referee for the game was Ron Challis of Tonbridge." - placement of this seems a bit random. I'd be tempted to move it to the start of the match section.
    The first mention of referees is in the following paragraph, about the delay, so I've moved his name there. We've lost the "of Tonbridge" as a result, but we can probably live without that, and it's in the summary later on anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jimmy Hill immediately went to speak to the scoreboard operator, asking them" - the operator jumps from being singular to plural. Maybe just "asking for the score to be displayed"
    I believe I intended this as a singular they, rather than a plural, since I have no idea of the scoreboard operator's gender. Your version works fine though, so I've switched to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: thanks for the review, I've addressed all the points you've mentioned so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

Not much to snipe at here, now I've recovered from the trauma of reading about Spurs being relegated. More to show I've read the article than any real concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in media—perhaps in broadcasting might be more specific?
  • better run of form.[7] By early December, they had risen to 10th position.[8] A run of poor form —avoid repeating run of form
  • many of whom were delayed as they travelled to Coventry.—the lead says by traffic, but you don't have that here
  • who scored into the far corner of the Coventry goal—"into" sounds wrong to me, "in" I think.
Jimfbleak thanks so much for reading, commenting and supporting. I've addressed your comments above, hopefully to your (and Amakuru's) satisfaction. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Passed edit

References

So when I get the link, it's https://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER2/0FFO-1977-MAY20-017?legacy=no&crop=2351+243+2300+6688&scale=0.4&format=jpeg which still appears to be an issue without subscription? If you want to change this, perhaps you can do it for me? Is this approach recommended in any FAC guidelines by the way? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it requires a subscription—you should be able to open it in a different browser or private mode, even if you aren't logged into Gale. For future reference, a couple comments about the URL. "legacy=no" can be deleted. "&format=jpeg" can frequently (but not always) be deleted. Here, however, doing so downloads the image. "&scale=0.4" can also be deleted or changed, which alters the size of the image. And playing with the crop numbers ("&crop=2351+243+2300+6688") changes which portion of the newspaper page can be displayed. Here, I would render the URL as https://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER2/0FFO-1977-MAY20-017?&crop=2351+243+1150+1950&format=jpeg, and have edited the article accordingly. As to guidelines, see WP:Citing sources. Among other guidance included there, "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source", "it is helpful to include hyperlinks to source material, when available", and "green open access links are generally preferable to paywalled or otherwise commercial and unfree sources." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

This version looked at. Looks pretty good overall. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique cheers, all addressed and/or responded to! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique hi, it's been nearly a week, are you good to pass this source review? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, sorry for the delay. A couple comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique I've fixed a couple more and left one response above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm signed off. The Rambling Man, I left a comment above re: Gale. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique hey, that's great, can you just confirm if the source review has passed by adding a note in the heading of this section please? Thanks for your diligence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, done. Good call, I think I've made it confusing for Gog the Mild to figure out sometimes. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique, I confuse easily. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dweller edit

Well written, densely referenced. I didn't know about this incident, and it's very well described. Great work on the legacy section and I was going to suggest linking the infamous World Cup match, but you even got that before me too. Support. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and support, glad you enjoyed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: with three supports and passes on images and sources, can I now nominate another co-nom FAC? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Sounds interesting, I'll have a go at it.

  • "As a result of many Bristol City supporters being delayed in traffic as they travelled to the game, the kick-off in the Coventry–Bristol City game was delayed by five minutes, to avoid crowd congestion. " Do we need the reasons for the delay to appear on both sides of the delay?
  • "Sunderland made a complaint about the incident, and the Football League conducted an investigation, but Coventry were eventually cleared of any wrong-doing." And what happened to Bristol City?
    @Wehwalt: I've scoured all the sources and I can't see a single one that mentions anything about Bristol City's conduct. To be honest I don't have a whole of detail on the whole "investigation" at all to be honest, including what exactly it looked at, other than the sources saying Coventry were cleared. Re Bristol, I would guess that nobody really blamed them because they'd always known from the outset that a drawn game would be enough for them. So they had little reason to seek a win with or without the scoreboard announcement, given that Coventry were also not trying to win. That's just conjecture though, obviously! Happy to hear any advice on how you think we should phrase this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "striker"?
  • Similar, a "defender"?
  • It might be more clearly stated at some early point what a team must do to avoid being relegated.
  • "They had been promoted from the Second Division as champions the previous season," This is at least implied if not explicitly stated in your discussion of Bristol City.
  • "Coventry and Bristol City had played each other twice in the 1976–77 season." Is the "had" really necessary? You are solidly established in the run-up to the match you discuss.
  • What is a "shot"? Is it similar to a "shot on goal"? Does it have anything to do with a "goalkeeper"?
  • You say that Stoke City were confirmed as relegated. While it was overwhelmingly likely that they were, could they not have avoided it had both Sunderland and the loser of the Coventry/Bristol City match each lost by a very unlikely number of goals?
  • Good question, there would have needed to have been a twelve-goal turnaround I suppose, which was not going to happen, but the source there is verifying the claim. Perhaps Amakuru can re-check the wording. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt and The Rambling Man: thanks for highlighting this one, I hadn't noticed it before. The source for the table and the situation going into the game is my book by Jim Brown, which does simply state that both Tottenham and Stoke were "down". In fact, Stoke would not just have required a twelve goal turnaround, they would in fact have needed Sunderland to lose by 18, and for either Coventry to lose by 13 or Bristol to lose by 14, given that their goals-scored tally was also inferior. Even one of those two results is unlikely, but both of them? Anyway, I have revised the league table and prose to indicate that they weren't actually mathematically relegated, but with a source indicating how hopeless their situation was in practical terms. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Everton/Sunderland match also played on that date as the result of a postponement?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Approximately 10,000 Bristol City supporters " could it be stated at some point how many home supporters were in attendance?
  • " Bristol City continued to seek the equaliser which would guarantee their survival." I might add "if the game ended in a draw" or similar, given they sill had to play the remainder of the game.
  • Why was no complaint made against Bristol City, and why were they not included in Sunderland's grudge? They certainly joined in the collusion to ensure there was no result.
  • "but he eventually had to receive a police escort for his safety.[46]" I would guess that this happened at the same match, which seems a short period of time to justify an "eventually".
  • "Coventry and Sunderland were involved in another last-day relegation battle 20 years later, at the end of the 1996–97 season." In what league?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I think all your comments have been addressed and/or responded to above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt before you vacation, would you be able to let us know if there's anything left of concern? Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2021 (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/Coventry_City_2–2_Bristol_City_(1977)/archive1&oldid=1035148923"