Template:Did you know nominations/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)

 * ... that 2004 FA Cup match between Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City is regarded by many as one of the greatest comebacks in footballing history? Source: Following Saturday's crazy 4-4 draw between Newcastle United and Arsenal, we felt it was an opportune time to leaf through the record books and rack our memories for the best comebacks ever ... Tottenham 3 - Manchester City 4 (FA Cup, 2004) The Top 10 comebacks of all-time ... 5) Tottenham 3-4 Man City, FA Cup 4th Round,  2004
 * ALT1: ... that Manchester City's 4–3 victory over Tottenham Hotspur in the 2003–04 FA Cup is regarded by many as one of the greatest comebacks in footballing history?
 * ALT2: ... that Manchester City's 4–3 victory over Tottenham Hotspur in the 2003–04 FA Cup is regarded by many as one of the greatest comebacks in FA Cup history?

Created by Falastur2 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Date and length fine however with regard to the hook, I feel it would be better if you do include the score in it. QPQ not needed as nominator only has 2 credits. No close paraphrasing. Just needs the hook looked at and I can pass this. Please ping me when it's been done.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created an alt hook which addresses this. Does this work? Falastur2 Talk 13:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 Approved, rest of review as above. Would be great if we could run this on an FA Cup weekend.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * what date is that? Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be either 27th January or 17th February as those are the main Saturdays when matches are played for the 4th and 5th rounds respectively.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I'll move it to the first date. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ... that Manchester City's 4–3 victory over Tottenham Hotspur in the 2003–04 FA Cup is regarded by many as one of the greatest comebacks in footballing history?, ,

Yes, it was epic. But a completely unreferenced "match" section, a few cn's sprinkled around, some tone issues in that same "match" section (to whit: "a superb left-foot curling shot", "good start took a knock", "Keane controlled superbly and stroked the ball"........)... this isn't ready and should not have been passed/promoted. P.S. I also fixed three dabs, but no need to thank me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I guess the match itself could be considered the reference for what happened in it, in the same way as a book synopsis can be considered sourced to the book without referencing. But then, the superlatives would have to be eliminated as WP:OR. So I think this one will have to be pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's like saying World War II itself could be considered the reference for what happened in it. Patently untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly the same thing, but regardless, I have pulled the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

England, the world, what's the difference? Fram (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * English cups really.. "greatest cup comebacks of English footballing history" vs "footballing history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galobtter (talk • contribs) 17:11, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * Overall it's an E minus then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More accurately, "FA Cup history", since that's what the sources actually say. Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Hook was pulled from Prep 2 after a discussion indicated that the promoted hook was not tenable; this also applies to the ALT hooks, which has been struck as well. A new hook will need to be proposed that matches the article and hooks, and the sourcing must meet DYK standards, which require at least one inline source citation per paragraph. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would rewriting the hook to be "...regarded by many to be one of the greatest comebacks in footballing FA Cup history" be sufficient, or am I being asked to rework the article to a higher standard? I'm not sure what the inference should be on how much work is required here based on that discussion, especially as I have habitually shied away from peer reviews? Falastur2 Talk 10:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise for pinging you all, but as said above, I'm a little unsure as to how much needs doing to make this article pass the DYK sign-off. Per the above, would changing the hook be enough, or am I being asked to rework the whole article? Falastur2 Talk 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That should be sufficient to fix the hook; presumably for the article would need to fix "citation needed" tags and the match summary is a somewhat over the top as The Rambling Man describes - "superb left-foot curling", "brilliant free kick" etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, honestly I didn't write that bit. I decided to leave it as-was from the first time I attempted to get this article published with another user - I had no intentions of pushing for GA status and didn't realise that the DYK process would highlight these kinds of issues if I'm honest. I'll look at amending the hook and the match details section later tonight. Falastur2 Talk 20:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * New hook written and I've fully cited the match report. Could you please re-review and comment? Falastur2 Talk 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I have struck the original hook and ALT1 due to the issues raised earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * citation needed tags would need attending to Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which tags? I'm aware of one that was in the match section, but I removed it when I added the required citations. I'm not aware of any further citation needed tags? Falastur2 Talk 16:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Background and aftermath section Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Falastur2</b> Talk 18:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that "magic of the FA Cup" cited below in the body or in the lead; nor the part about mediocrity and bottom-half finishes in the background section; and aftermath section needs some cites - i've tagged where citations are needed, which appears to be the only problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, again. I had originally opted against citing such things as the bottom-half finishes, as that struck me as a relatively easily verifiable fact but I have now cited all of these all the same. I hope that I've now cited enough in the article as, with 50 citations in an article not much bigger than a stub, I fear that the text is starting to look somewhat swamped with citation numbers! <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article was pulled from Queue 3 due to having been previously deleted at AfD in 2010 (and merged in a previous creation in 2009), and also due to tone issues. There have been edits by Falastur2 since to address the tone issues, but due to its history at AfD I thought it was important to have the new incarnation of the article reviewed at AfD, so I have nominated it there. The DYK nomination is on hold until the AfD closes. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I would have preferred if you had informed me that this had happened at the time. It took me a serious amount of time trawling through peoples' edit histories to work out that this is what had happened. <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 22:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg AfD closed as "no consensus". Pinging Black Kite to see whether there were any other issues with the article when it was pulled from queue beyond the prior AfDs that had resulted in the article being removed or merged at the time, and The Rambling Man to see whether the tone issues raised via template have been addressed by the subsequent edits. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it still reads like a tabloid report e.g. "position was knocked", "which would become far more relevant very shortly afterwards", "would come back to bite him", "on the stroke of half-time ", " indicative of the start of a career which would ultimately be characterised by controversy", ""suddenly appeared resurgent". Plus there are real prose issues, repetition, grammar, stuff like that.  It needs wholesale revision.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per those concerns I'm giving this a Symbol delete vote.svg. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)