Talk:1936 FA Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, will review and make straightforward changes as I go, and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I must admit I don't like having "at Wembley" in consecutive sentences at the beginning of the lead, but an alternative is not springing to mind. Will have a think on this one.
 * Changed the second instance to the "national stadium". Miyagawa   (talk)  20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 *  ... both Arsenal and Sheffield United received byes into the third round of the FA Cup - the wording comes across as odd. I don't think you can receive a bye into something. Maybe "seeded directly into the third round"?
 * Changed as suggested. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Pre-match section, you haven't mentioned what Sheffield Utd wore. It'd be notable by today's standards if they wore their red/white strip as one would think it'd clash....although it looks like what they are wearing from the images....
 * Can you give me a couple of days to try to source this properly - it hadn't crossed my mind before and now I'm rather confused as I can't work out why one of the teams wasn't in their away strip as they should have been introduced in 1921. I'll go back through the Times archive and see if I can turn up a mention of it. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know why, but they both wore red and white shirts - I couldn't find a mention of it being unusual in the Times archive, and managed to add a reference from Toffs.com (a retro football shirt manufacturer). Miyagawa   (talk)  22:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Link "newsreel" or "newsreel companies" as I suspect younger readers will not be familiar with the term
 * Done. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * London Challenge Cup links to the wrong place....
 * It's actually the right place, just that article doesn't have the winners from 1908 to 1974 listed. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how one finds all these other to-does on other articles.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean - I only initially worked on this article because someone nominated Harry Hooper for a DYK and linked this article in the hook. When I clicked on it I found it was really stubby, so decided to expand it and well... I found a lot more information was avaliable than I was expecting. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - just a couple of niggles and then we're done. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I started going through the article only to realise partway that it was already being reviewed. I'll stay away from the review process, but I may as well list the nitpicks I noticed while I'm here. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Numbers are listed for the players in Match details, but images from the final (e.g. ) appear to show that numbered shirts were not used.
 * That's a fair point, I've removed the numbers. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Went back and inserted the positions as per the cup finals which are already GA's from earlier years. Miyagawa   (talk)  22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As more than one major club takes the city's name, Sheffield United are seldom referred to simply as Sheffield. In this case, the existence of Sheffield F.C. further complicates matters. United or even The Blades would be a more conventional short form. If there is any chance of ambiguity, like in the sentence a record crowd of 68,287 at Bramall Lane saw United defeat Leeds United, use the full name.
 * Fixed it as I've spotted them - mostly it was in the match report. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Drake and Bastin both scoring twice, and Bowden making it five. - This wording makes it sound like Bowden scored the fifth, but the source doesn't specify. This could do with either an additional source or some rewording.
 * Reworded it to "with a single goal from Bowden and two each from Drake and Bastin" - it didn't have the "single" at first, but then it sounded like Bowden scored the first. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's inconsistency in whether First Division and other leagues names are capitalised.
 * Gone through and capitalised all Division titles. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All nitpicks are good. Thanks for reminding me as I had noted that about using an abbreviated term for Sheffield United, the usual would be "United" and the context of the page would let us know it is this club not (for instance) Man U. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, I can always use another pair of eyes on an article. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The Match Report link is just a bare URL and there is no information/details of the linked article such as author/date/publisher etc - bare URLs should be avoided. Keith D (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's how template:footballbox works, it needs a bare url. I have however replaced the previous report on a private website with the report from the Daily Mirror. Miyagawa   (talk)  22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)