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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [1].

---

1923 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I'm nominating this article on the first ever football match at Wembley Stadium for featured article because I feel it meets all the FA criteria, I hope you feel the same :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

• What makes the following a reliable source?
  • http://www.fchd.info/

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion we had on exactly the same topic here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm on the road, and the connection in this hotel is... wonky at times. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Images all images are free with appropriate tags, only comment is that the picture of the white horse doesn't carry the same "out of copyright in UK" as the other images - a small nit but easily fixed. --MASEM 05:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm surprised how much imformation is avaliable on this 85-year-old game. Maybe this can start a new trend of bringing cup finals to FAC. It's also well-illustrated, considering the age of the topic (articles on old topics frequently lack good free pictures). I'll run through the article for any prose issues now.

• Actually, I think I'll complain about the references first. There are inconsistencies regarding the access dates, with commas and links in some but not all. My main concern is the linked dates, which have fallen into disfavor across the board recently. Do the templates force this? Perhaps it's not actionable here, but I see no reason why access dates can be linked when publication dates aren't. Hopefully, Tony can convince the MoS people to get rid of these.
  • The inconsistency appears to be caused by the fact that ((cite news)) leaves the date unlinked but puts a comma in, whereas ((cite web)) omits the comma but links the date! I'm not really sure what to do for the best here, as using ((cite news)) for, for example, the Soccerbase refs, would not seem to be appropriate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, think I've figured out how to make the ((cite web)) dates unlinked, I'll start on that now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems to have worked OK :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Now the prose check: "Eventually anything up to 300,000 fans gained entrance and the terraces overflowed..." Needs something sharper than "Eventually anything up to".
• "had to be brought in to clear the crowd from the pitch in order to allow the match to take place." A touch wordy.
• Route to the final: The 1904–05 season link redirects to a page that now contains an en dash. The hyphen in the piping can now be converted.
• Comma after "The first match at West Ham's home".
• "with a goal from Billy Brown. Brown..." Change the second Brown to avoid repetition.
• Build-up: Remove the Stamford Bridge link here, because one is in the prior section. Also get rid of the London link a bit further on.
• Remove comma after "the crowds remaining outside the stadium" at 2:15. Are the dots after the hour standard in British English? Haven't seen them before, but they're probably fine.

I'm done for now, but will review more later. In the meantime, can any more contemporary reports from The Times be found? To me, the ability to see contemporary reports about such an old match is a rare treat, and it would be great to have more. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your comments, all addressed now I think. Unfortunately other than for some key topics The Times' archive is pay-per-view at £5 (US$10) a day, so I don't think I'll be using it too often :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$10 per day? That's just robbery. Anyway, here are a couple more comments.

• Match recap reads well for me, though that must be balanced by the fact that I'm a sports fan and can miss jargon that other reviewers can easily find.
• Aftermath: "Although around 900 people were treated for slight injuries, only 22 were taken to hospital..." Should be a or the hospital. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually in British English, "taken to hospital" is a perfectly valid turn of phrase - see for example this and this from the BBC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• There are a fair number of "noun plus -ing"'s in the article, such as "with David Jack scoring the lone goal", and "Public transport making the stadium easily accessible" (ref: User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing). Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite, various "lead to/led to" clauses are using the "noun plus -ing". Furthermore, there is "to prevent Bolton's David Jack shooting for goal". Jappalang (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Picked up all of those, I think, feel free to flag any I missed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to fix up some easy ones, here are the last three I could find that I fear to mess with: "local fans flocking to the stadium", "one of their fans kicking the ball to Vizard", and "fans arriving in the hope of". Jappalang (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All done *phew* -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment Some aspects of the article structure look strangely familiar :) Just a couple of very minor points:
  • At various points both FA and F.A. are used.
    • All standardised to FA, as per the title of our article on the competition, other than in reference titles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overly keen on the abbreviated positions in the team line-ups. Writing them out in full or linking the abbreviations might be better. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Support. Even looking through the article with an ultra-pedantic eye, everything looks good. As comprehensive as an article about the sport in the interwar period can get. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm uncomfortable with the match details section in general. Apart from the unkeyed abbreviations mentioned above, the reduced font size seems unnecessary from an accessibility point of view, given how much white space surrounds the team lists. And the use of flags runs counter to MOS:FLAG, particularly #2, "provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flags are gone (another editor snuck them in when I wasn't looking :-) ). Reduced-size font has been binned. And positions have been written out in full and wikilinked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • much better now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the ALLCAPS necessary in the "Details" section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After the above changes were carried out, I think this is up to the standards now. Do note that I left a couple things unstruck, but they aren't important enough for me to withhold support. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your two remaining points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support once the points below are addressed. Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Build-up section, 2nd para. Change some of the 5 occurrences of "forced" or "force" in the 2nd half of the para.
• Aftermath. "around 900 people were treated for slight injuries ... Two policemen were also injured". Are policemen not people?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• In the team lineups section, could we include the shirt numbers? The format used at 2005_Champions_League_Final#Match_details uses the shirt numbers, for example. That said, it's probably a matter of preference as to which lineups format to use - there are several out there and WPFOOTY has never agreed on a "standard" lineup format as far as I know. --Jameboy (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of shirt numbering was not introduced until the late 1930s, so there are no numbers to include. In fact if you look at the image taken from the match, you can see that the two players with their backs to the camera have no numbers on their shirts..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • D'oh, I knew that. I retract my comment. --Jameboy (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all my comments were dealt with at the peer review, and the article has improved since. Well written and there is nothing missing. Peanut4 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.