Talk:2024 EFL Trophy final/GA1

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

Nominator: 18:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: JC Kotisow (talk · contribs)

Hello, please to be reviewing the article 2024 EFL Trophy final for the next few days --JC Kotisow (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 :</li>

<li>, as shown by a source spot-check:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Result
Final comments: @Michaeldble I want to thank you for your cooperation during this assessment. After reviewing the article, I believe it earns to be nominated to GA status as it follows the criteria for it. Thanks again for your effort. JC Kotisow (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @JC Kotisow Thank you very much for your help, I really appreciate it! All the best Michaeldble (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Lead:

"The 2024 EFL Trophy final, known as the Bristol Street Motors Trophy final for sponsorship reasons, was an association football match that was played on 7 April 2024 at Wembley Stadium, London. It was played between League One teams Peterborough United and Wycombe Wanderers."

I feel that could be reworded more simply to The 2024 EFL Trophy final, known as the Bristol Street Motors Trophy final for sponsorship reasons, was an association football match played between Peterborough United and Wycombe Wanderers on 7 April 2024 at Wembley Stadium in London, England.

Keeps it more consistent with other English final articles. JC Kotisow (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ✅


 * Also add the citation (which you used in the first paragraph of the Background) after "for sponsorship reasons," JC Kotisow (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure what you mean here sorry. I thought we avoided using citations in the lead if it is sourced further down? Michaeldble (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble I only said that because the first paragraph, which stated the format rules of the competition, was to be removed. It's just to add verification that it is called that in the lead. JC Kotisow (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the rules of the competition not important context though? It's useful to know which teams are eligible for users imo Michaeldble (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble I just don't think it's practical. It does not make sense to me to put in the format when the article is linking the season article of the competition and even the competition itself which both states the format. But if you what something about the format, keep the first paragraph in Background and remove the one in the lead that I mentioned JC Kotisow (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

--

"thanks to..." → resulted from
 * I'm not too sure this sounds natural but I can change it Michaeldble (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Michaeldble It's just the wording to make it sound encyclopaedic but it's not that serious anyway, so keep it the same if you believe it sounds better that way. JC Kotisow (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"However, in stoppage time..." → remove However ✅

"Burrows scored a second goal to win the match..." → add the scoreline at the end. ✅

– JC Kotisow (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

--

"The match decided the winners of the 2023–24 EFL Trophy, a knock-out tournament comprising clubs from League One and League Two of the English Football League (EFL), as well as 16 Category One academy sides representing Premier League and Championship clubs."

Remove this and the first paragraph of the Background section, you don't need to recount the format rules of a competition in a final article. The rest of the lead I believe is good unless more information is added in the main sections. JC Kotisow (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To me this seems like important context for the lead surely? Readers would want to know who took part in the competition Michaeldble (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble As I said before remove the text that states format and keep the first paragraph of background. JC Kotisow (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble just remove the bit that says "a knock-out tournament comprising clubs from League One and League Two of the English Football League (EFL), as well as 16 Category One academy sides representing Premier League and Championship clubs."
 * I just think thats unnecessary. JC Kotisow (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

--


 * Background:

"having won the competition in the 2013–14 season, beating Chesterfield 3–1 in the 2014 final..."

Can be reworded for simplicity to having won the competition in the 2014 final against Chesterfield. ✅

— JC Kotisow (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

--

"This victory in 2014 was achieved during Darren Ferguson's second spell as Peterborough's manager, with the 2024 final being held during his fourth spell with the club"

Could be changed to Manager Darren Ferguson led Peterborough to that victory and entered the 2024 final during his fourth spell at the club

Although it is reworded similarly, this allows better flow and readability. This can be discussed further if you wish. JC Kotisow (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ✅

--

"This was the first time that Wycombe had reached the final of the EFL Trophy"

Add 'In contrast,'/'For their counterpart,'/'For Wycombe,' before saying 'this was'/'it was' for clarification. I feel you are jumping into information quickly without transitioning. Also, add "aimed to win their first professional trophy" so it can be like this as an example: ✅

''In contrast, it was the first time that Wycombe had reached the final of the EFL Trophy and contested for the club's first professional trophy. Their previous best performance in the competition was in the semi-finals of the 2016–17 season. Despite this, Wycombe had previously played at Wembley on six occasions, winning four times in other tournaments.'' — JC Kotisow (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ✅

--

"Wycombe's manager Matt Bloomfield had previously played for the club and had captained Wycombe to promotion at Wembley to the Championship for the first time in 2020 via the play-offs."

Change to Wycombe's manager Matt Bloomfield had previously played at Wembley as captain for the club in the 2020 play-offs of the Championship

— JC Kotisow (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

-- With it being the League One play-offs, I've changed it slightly to: "Wycombe's manager Matt Bloomfield had previously played at Wembley as captain for the club in the 2020 EFL League One play-off final" if that's ok with you Michaeldble (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"The two sides had met twice already during the league that season. At Peterborough's London Road Stadium, the two sides played out a 2–2 draw in October 2023."

Change the first "side" to 'clubs' and "the two" in the second line to "both". Remove "Peterborough's". JC Kotisow (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ✅

--

Comments: The background is pretty good and the prose is well aligned with guidelines as I see it. For the third paragraph (or second if the first is removed), when the article describes past meetings, only account for the scorelines and not the players who scored in the game to prevent the paragraph from dragging out too much information. Other than that, if you considered my previous comments, I think this section is fine as it is.

@User: JC Kotisow, Thank you very much for taking this on. I've made a start at addressing some of your comments but I'll finish the rest over the next day or so. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Michaeldble No problem I'll keep adding comments in the following days. JC Kotisow (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow Hello there, I hope you don't mind but I've re-added the 'done' templates for now for my ease to see what I've done so far Michaeldble (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a few comments above too if you could have a look Michaeldble (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comments above, I do slightly disagree personally. This competition is not the most well-known so I think a sentence describing who is eligible to participate would be useful. I did base a lot of the structure of this article on the 2017 EFL Trophy final article which is a featured article. This page includes this detail in both the lead and background section Michaeldble (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble I've checked it out, if that is the case then leave as it is. Look man, you gotta stop putting the ✅ tag if you have not done or even discussed about my comments, especially for the lead. My only problem is that before the line "This was the first time that Wycombe had reached the final of the EFL Trophy." Please add something like "In contrast,'/'For their counterpart,'/'For Wycombe" to create more flow in info. That is my only concern. The rest is fine. I will review the next sections soon. JC Kotisow (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was confused why you were saying that because I remembered doing all of your suggestions. I must've forgotten to publish for some reason(!) I think I have implemented most of that now. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble All good, just only change that, the rest is fine I believe JC Kotisow (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Route to the final
So moving on, I believe we can arrange the tables and matches that state the club's routes a bit more efficiently. I'm suggesting something like this:

Note: In all results below, the score of the finalist is given first (H: home; A: away).

I believe this is better for organisation, plus leaves more room for images to be added into the section. JC Kotisow (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) ✅ I agree that it's better, plus I think the collapsible boxes might be against the manual of style anyway Michaeldble (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

--

"Peterborough controlled much of the possession throughout the match and opened the scoring thanks to Jadel Katongo.[18] A miss-hit effort from Ryan de Havilland from range fell into the path of Katongo who was able to swivel and shoot past the Cambridge goalkeeper to open the scoring in the 19th minute"

Change to Peterborough controlled much of the possession throughout the match and opened the scoring through Jadel Katongo You don't need to repeat open the scoring twice. JC Kotisow (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) ✅

--

"Peterborough's second match" → just say "second match", you already clarified it's Peterborough ✅

"another academy side, this time" → remove this ✅

"thanks to a de Havilland strike" → use "thanks to" less, or just say "from a goal by de Havilland" ✅

"They doubled their lead before half time after Arsenal lost possession near their own box with the ball being squared to Clark-Harris to score.[22] Peterborough scored their third of the match after a counter attack which culminated in Malik Mothersille slotting the ball past the goalkeeper." → Too much words for one thing, say They doubled their lead before half time after a counter attack which culminated in Malik Mothersille slotting the ball past the goalkeeper.

Can you find other words to use than the phrase "thanks to," you have used it three times in one paragraph? JC Kotisow (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"In the round of 32 stage" → change to In the Round of 32, (Captalise round and add a comma in the end)

"In the round of 16" → change to 'Round' since it is a noun

"Peterborough would be at home again for the quarter-finals, this time playing League Two AFC Wimbledon." → Say Peterborough would play at home in the quarter-finals against League Two side AFC Wimbledon. ✅

"since their winning campaign in 2014" → say since their 2014 campaign. ✅

"A late goal for Ryan McLean for Wimbledon set up a nervy end" → from Ryan McLean. change 'set up a nervy end' to something like to bring his side into the match and then follow with 'before...' ✅

"Despite having lost to Blackpool only three days prior in the league" → no need to mention this ✅

"at league rivals Blackpool" → change 'at' as it does not make sense. ✅ I've re-worded this

"seal Posh's place in the final." → Remove this. you have already said they made it to the final twice. ✅

Let me know your thoughts JC Kotisow (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

--

"In the round of 32" → Capitalise to Round (Under Wycombe Wanderers section). Just to note, capitalise 'round' in any such cases that mention stages like "Round of 32" or "Round of 16".

"In the round of 16, they faced West Ham United Under-21s. An early own goal from Lewis Orford gave Wycombe an early lead which was subsequently doubled by Richard Kone to give Wycombe a 2–0 lead at half time." Can reword better to In the Round of 16 against West Ham United Under-21s, an own goal from Lewis Orford gave Wycombe an early lead into the match which Richard Kone doubled to give his side a 2–0 lead at half time. ✅

"In the quarter-finals, the Chairboys were at home for the third round in a row to an academy side, this time Brighton & Hove Albion Under-21s." Reword this better to The Chairboys were drawn to an academy side for a third time in a row, against Brighton & Hove Albion Under-21s at home in the quarter-finals. ✅

"Three Wycombe goals in five minutes ahead of half time gave Wycombe a half time lead thanks to two goals from Kieran Sadlier as well as an own goal from Leigh Kavanagh." → Three goals for Wycombe gave them the lead ahead of half time thanks to two goals from Kieran Sadlier and an own goal from Leigh Kavanagh. ✅

"A cross from the right-wing found Matt Butcher who controlled it before sending a half-volley into the bottom right corner.[32] This goal from Butcher in the 91st minute was his first Wycombe goal.[32]" → ''A cross from the right-wing found Matt Butcher who scored from a half-volley into the bottom right corner. The goal from Butcher was his first for Wycombe Wanderers.'' ✅

-- Comments: So far so good is all I have to say. I found a lot of repetition in each paragraph which stated the same thing in different or the same sentences but other than that, it is pretty solid. JC Kotisow (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Michaeldble Also add a few images if you can. JC Kotisow (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @User:JC Kotisow Are you definitely sure that 'Round of 16' is capitalised? I've mostly seen it in lower case on here but I may be wrong, I'll check on other articles. For the images, I'm not too sure if I can add anymore - the goalscorers for the game don't have images on here Michaeldble (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble That's OK. Don't worry bout the Round of 16 bit. I was using an example to say cap stages or rounds because u using lower caps for stuff like 'round of 32' when it should be Round of 32 JC Kotisow (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When I looked on other articles, they don't seem to capitalise the 'round' part: 2022 FIFA World Cup final and 2018 FIFA World Cup final. I might have a look on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if it's come up before Michaeldble (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble don't stress about it, it's not that serious anyway. I'll continue with the review tomorrow JC Kotisow (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thank you very much Michaeldble (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

--

Pre-match and Match
First, can you add some quotes and info from Wycombe's point of view? It's a pre-match, you need to have some information about Wycombe. JC Kotisow (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Michaeldble Sorry forgot to tag you. JC Kotisow (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow Hey there, apologies for the delay, I've been away for the weekend. I'll do that after work tomorrow evening I think Michaeldble (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow I couldn't see lots of coverage relating to Wycombe apart from interviews with their manager. I've extended quotes from him from that BBC reference if that's ok Michaeldble (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble Yeah that is fine, but can you also add Wycombe's position in the league like you have done for Peterborough. The quotes I think are good enough. JC Kotisow (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow Looking through all of the references, I can't find a source that mentions their position at the time unfortunately unless you can find one. I could remove the Peterborough position to make it more balanced? Michaeldble (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble I was unable to find a link but just link to the table and look at the web archives (use wayback machine) during April 2024 for the table before the match. JC Kotisow (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow I looked at the Wayback machine and they were only showing archives from 26 Jan and 29 April. The only thing I can suggest is adding a table from that week's matchweek: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c0w6y2ye3gxt#Tables This is a table from 6 April on the Portsmouth v Shrewsbury which shows the table from the day before the final Michaeldble (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble Yeh I guess that works JC Kotisow (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow Done Michaeldble (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michaeldble Just added some comments below JC Kotisow (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

--- "to be assisted" → assisted...

For the Match' section, I recommend expanding as many key or semi-ish important moments as possible, it looks too small. JC Kotisow (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Make sure everything is in past tense. Everything else looks fine. JC Kotisow (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @JC Kotisow Apologies, I've been away for a few days. Regarding adding more info on the match, I think it was a pretty dull game lol so don't think there's much more to add in terms of events from the main match reports (Sky and BBC). I think I've addressed the past tense stuff unless you can spot anymore Michaeldble (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Post-match
Alright, I'm going to make this quick before I move on to the citations and make a final assessment. JC Kotisow (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Peterborough's win confirmed their second title in the competition after previously winning in 2014. The victory maintained Peterborough's 100% win record at Wembley. The win was celebrated in front of nearly 23,000 Peterborough supporters." → This can be reworded a lot better, I suggest ''The win confirmed a second title of the EFL Trophy for Peterborough after previously winning in 2014, maintaining the 100% win record at Wembley. The match was celebrated in front of 23,000 Peterborough supporters.''

For the second paragraph, shorten your quotes, you are putting way too much in for so little information, cut it down a bit. I believe the rest is fine. JC Kotisow (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @JC Kotisow I think I've addressed these now Michaeldble (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)