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 Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 [1].

1998 FA Charity Shield[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about English football's traditional curtain-raiser, played in 1998. Like nearly all Charity Shield stagings, this was a drab affair because it has the feel of a pre-season match – the events of the game weren't particularly memorable, but it was the first competitive match of Manchester United's successful 1998–99 season. I nominated this for PR last month and have since made adjustments; I believe now the article is worth a shot here. Any sort of comment would be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

  • True – rephrased it to highlight that the title was only decided on the final day, and there was a outside chance Arsenal could win it.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments, think I've addressed them all. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Good job. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive by comment: Isn't the lead rather long? Four paragraphs of lead, but only a further nine paragraphs of prose in the article itself. 194.176.105.145 (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Trimmed the lead to three paragraphs; removed bits about team news and what the managers had to say. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I've made some minor tweaks. I suggest adding some of the following:

--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments – added the 9th win in the post-match section and an image of Wenger, as I couldn't find any of Overmars which are licensed/on Wikicommons. Nor could I find any information about who presented the Shield, or names of the fourth official/linesman, etc in the archives at this moment. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Another obvious omission I see is a lack of a link to the match report in the relevant field of the details section, you could use this one {http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-arsenal-show-united-little-charity-1170865.html]. Also I see several Independent articles you've used as references, all of which are freely available online. I supposes there's nothing wrong with referencing the hard copy instead, but I do feel it would be an improvement if readers were able to actually click to see the material in question.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers for the heads-up -- have found a few more online Independent articles to link accordingly. Changed the details source because the one I initally cited didn't specify what time in the match certain players were shown yellow cards -- this article does however. And across the print texts there are inconsistencies between match facts and written reports; when minute did Arsenal scored their three goals and how many players were booked. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Made a couple of changes myself, almost there i think, though we surely need at least one more image? Perhaps a photo of the old Wembley stadium could be used? (ideally taken as close to that year as possible). Alternatively, maybe a photo of the trophy? Perhaps even both?--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have now added an image of Wembley. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok,I've been looking through other comparable matches that have achieved FA status in order to find anything we might be missing and encourage others to do the same, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Showcase. I see some have diagrams of the team line-ups, heres one such example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sounders_FC_vs_Columbus_Crew_2010-10-05.svg Do we have sufficient information for such a diagram without venturing into original research? Alternatively can we at least describe each player's position as per some of the FA Cup finals that have FA status?--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PeeJay has created a line-up graphic and I've added some detail about the formations Arsenal and United employed without getting too technical. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, my concerns have all been addressed and I can't think of any other issues, good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One further thought, I note the "AXA" logo on the programme, and assume they're the sponsor? It seems to be standard practice to mention such information so I suggest a brief mention of that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explained my reasoning for not including sponsors here. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the more recent Charity/Community Shields should have sponsor information included, as they often request that their name be included in the title of the match (e.g. this year's "FA Community Shield sponsored by McDonalds"). However, although I have a copy of the match programme from the 1998 Charity Shield, which undoubtedly contains info about AXA's sponsorship, I don't think their name was included in the title of the match (it wasn't called "The AXA FA Charity Shield", AFAIK). – PeeJay 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it turns out the situation was quite the opposite. There's literally nothing about AXA's association with the Shield in the programme, but they do refer to it as "The AXA FA Charity Shield", albeit only once in the running order at the front of the programme. – PeeJay 12:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Manchester United began the game more effectively - maybe "strongly" - "effectively" doesn't go here....
had won the Shield outright - why is "outright" needed here?
Because up until 1992 a drawn game resulted in each club having to share the Shield for six months each. Although Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur both list the 1991 FA Charity Shield as an honour, it was shared. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise looks on target.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers for taking a look. Hopefully I've addressed all your concerns. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Need to sleep now - will take another look in the morning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes -- Looks like we still need image and source reviews and, assuming this is your first FAC, Lemonade (a belated welcome in that case!) we'll also need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake one or more of those, pls do so, otherwise we can list requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review by Hamiltonstone

That's it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Eric Corbett

Eric Corbett 18:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look. Have added a bit on the pitch-side temperature in the match summary. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your addition – "The pitch-side temperature had reached 30 °C (86 °F) in the second half" – isn't quite right, the tense is wrong. Should it be "The pitch-side temperature reached 30 °C (86 °F) in the second half"? In addition the cited source says nothing about the temperature in the second half. What it says is that "An hour and a half chasing the double-winners around Wembley's broad acres in 30-degree heat was not the ideal preparation for United's European date on Wednesday", clearly implying that it was 30 °C throughout the entire match.
  • Tweaked it. Now put it at the beginning of the first paragraph.
  • Also, "Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit ... took longer to get into the match, having taken part in France's successful World Cup campaign" seems to be a non sequitor. What has one to do with the other?
Eric Corbett 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no so sure i agree with the removal. At the very least it's well worth mentioning that it's their first competitive game for Arsenal since winning the World Cup. The pair combined for France's third goal, so it's not as if they were mere uninvolved France squad members.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is it worth mentioning? Eric Corbett 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because winning the World Cup is notable and therefore it's probably worth documenting their return from such a feat, particularly as they won it together in such a fashion. I think I'd be right in saying that only one Arsenal player had actually won the World Cup before those two.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. So in the context of this article about a relatively insignificant Charity Shield match it's not important at all, unless you're attempting to pump up Arsenal. Eric Corbett 01:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Tks for that, Nikki -- could I also trouble you for a spotcheck of sources as I understand this is the nominator's first (potentially successful) FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotchecks

The number of offline sources prevents comprehensive spotchecking, but what is here is a bit troubling. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the spotchecks. I've updated FN6's link, added a source to confirm Vivas was on the bench, rewritten the Southern club bit and tweaked the second paragraph of the summary. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Temporary oppose: (Striking oppose after the second spotcheck turned up okay.) I'm not trying to stop promotion ... just to delay it until you've had a chance to take another look at close paraphrasing and make sure the citations support the text. "Spotchecks" means that Nikki only checked in spots ... if she found that much, then there's probably more somewhere, so please go back and check all your text against the sources. If a spotcheck after that turns up clean, you can forget I mentioned it :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did a few corrections to the article after Nikki's spotchecks last week, which I forgot to mention. Have in the last few hours checked every source and tried to paraphrase the summary in particular to the best of my ability – bit difficult with few sources about the actual match available. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. What happens next is up to the FAC coords, but I'm hoping someone will do another spotcheck. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tks guys. Nikki, I note what you said about availability of sources. If you feel there's enough to make another check that might give you a reasonably confident feeling either way, then that'd be very helpful. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is, at this point - much of the "meat" of the article yet to be checked is cited to offline/subscription sources that I can't access for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think this would be of any help, Nikkimaria → FN10, FN18, FN20, FN21, FN25 (Team lineup is in the print edition), FN33 (Highbeam), FN41, FN42 Lemonade51 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Lemonade. That copy of FN21 is incomplete so can't be verified, but the other footnotes don't have any obvious problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nikki, I did ask Tim Riley if he could have a look at some book refs through the British Library but if you feel comfortable with the accuracy of the sourcing now then we could release him from this task and promote this long-running nom. OTOH if Tim has the books already then I'll wait for his checks in any case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I come to look at the refs I see that the printed books quoted can be accessed online. Both refs 31 and 32 are correctly cited. As I'm at the British Library I have availed myself of its online access to the paywalled archives of The Times, and refs 5, 20, 21a-f, 41 and 42, all from The Times, are absolutely fine. Refs 1, 10, and 25 to The Guardian are fine too. All looks right to me. Tim riley talk 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many tks Tim, and everyone else who's participated in this review. That's the full-time whistle I think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More