Talk:1933 FA Cup final/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Review: A good piece of work. A few minor issues to sort and then an easy pass.
 * What happened to Man City in the 3rd round?
 * A glaring omission, now rectified.


 * Some comment in the build-up section about the team's league form may give some context to the pre-match expectation. And who were the favourites?
 * Added a little more. There was no clear favourite.


 * This was the first match where the teams wore numbered shirts in the FA Cup. The implication is that numbers were worn in another competition. The obvious question for the reader is when numbers were worn before this. If they weren't, then the article should really say so.
 * While Arsenal and Chelsea both claim to be the first (in 1928), I'm struggling to corroborate in reliable sources. The Football League didn't approve the use of numbers until 1939.


 * "but it came to naught": Sounds slightly archaic! Came to nothing?
 * ''Done. Must have read too many 1930s newspaper articles ;).


 * "Another chance quickly arrived, Dean failed to connect with a cross from Stein." Missing word here somewhere.
 * Reworded.


 * "No further chances occurred before the half-time interval." Ref?
 * Upon re-reading I think it is probably more helpful to the reader to simply state the half-time score, so I've removed this.


 * Not a huge problem, but why is there a direct link in the section "Details" to a match report. I've seen this in other FA Cup final articles, but never anywhere else.
 * Turned it into a regular cite. The question was where to put it. In the section header would presumably violate some MoS principle so I just put it next to the scoreline.


 * Picky, but what about a ref for the rules?
 * Might be picky but its still valid. Removed, we don't lose much by doing so as the match was settled in 90 minutes.


 * Any aftermath?


 * I could only check the one online ref and the two to the Times. These revealed no problems (although the position of the Man City goalkeeper is implied, not stated in the article. But I don't see it as an issue.)
 * Additional ref added.


 * No problems with DABlinks or external links. No images to check except the one in the infobox, which is fine.
 * Not an issue for GA, but if this were to go to FAC, I would imagine it may need a wider range of references and less reliance on one newspaper. For what it's worth, I think the use of the Everton website to ref Dean choosing the team is justified but would not recommend using this site for anything else in the article.
 * I'll place this on hold for seven days, but imagine it will be quicker than that to sort. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been caught out by seeing a long review queue and assuming that I'd have some time to polish and add some book refs. Not that I'm complaining about a prompt review, I only have myself to blame there. About half done, and will do the rest in the next day or two. I agree that this is not a potential FA candidate without plenty of extra work. I don't have much reference material written from the Everton point of view, and there's no substitute to going to a major library and hitting the microfilm to get a full range of contemporary reports. The newspaper archives I have access to are a bit disappointing for post-match detail, but I'll see what I can put together. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should all be covered now, apart from extra details for previous use of numbers which I've failed to find RS for. The post-match section is pretty skinny but unfortunately I couldn't find much usable stuff. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All changes fine, and post match looks good to say you couldn't find much. Nice piece of work and an enjoyable read. Passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)