Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1878 FA Cup final/archive1

1878 FA Cup final

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought for once I would nominate an article which isn't about Gillingham F.C. I mean, sure, it's still football, but at least it's different football :-)  For this one I take you back to the very early days of the sport, when well-to-do gentlemen who had been to the finest schools in the land were the top stars of the game.  Oh, and one thing you can definitely say about this particular match is that the referee was a Bastard ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * including the first FA Cup final, in 1872, -- I think the comma after final should be removed
 * Wanderers, who were considered firm -- The Wanderers. I noticed that for the Engineers you precede it with the article "the" whereas you don't in instances for the Wanderers. Perhaps that should be consistent throughout. (unless there's a rationale I am not aware of in British usage, then the rest of the similar comments below can be ignored)
 * In the 1877–78 season, Wanderers were the -- same above the Wanderers
 * No other club had yet won the competition more than once -- does this statistic still hold? If so, perhaps worth adding to date or something along those lines.
 * TBF, it already says "no other club had yet won the competition more than once", which means the same as "to date". And no, this certainly isn't still true, 23 clubs have won the competition more than once as of 2024, with the record being 14 wins -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not until 1882 would a working-class team would a working-class team reach the FA Cup final -- It was not until 1882 that a working class team reached
 * Wanderers were allocated a home -- same as second point
 * Wanderers were considered strong favourites -- same
 * Two weeks later, Wanderers won -- same
 * In the quarter-finals Wanderers -- in the quarter finals, the Wanderers
 * In the quarter-finals their opponents -- comma after quarter-finals
 * Hon. Arthur Kinnaird for Wanderers -- the Wanderers
 * played in goal for Wanderers -- same
 * Wanderers, who were considered the firm favourites
 * went on to play the remainder -- play for the remainder
 * had he left the game, Wanderers would have -- the Wanderers
 * Charles Wollaston took a shot for Wanderers -- for the Wanderers
 * Shortly after the interval Hedley appeared to have -- comma after interval
 * Heron of Wanderers for his performance -- of the Wanderers
 * On that occasion the club was presented -- comma after occasion
 * the Cup final, Wanderers played the winners -- the Wanderers
 * poor conditions, Wanderers were defeated -- same
 * Neither Wanderers or Royal Engineers -- since you have mostly referred to the team as Engineers throughout, perhaps it should be applied in this section too.
 * That's all from me. Quite a nice change in your usual Gillingham series, and very interesting read. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * -thanks for your review! All done other than where noted.  Sources are inconsistent in use of "Wanderers" vs "the Wanderers", but I have added "the" anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good and great work. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
That's all I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 'a "scrimmage" (a contemporary term for a group of players all struggling to gain possession of the ball)': suggest making this 'a "scrimmage" (a contemporary term for a group of players all struggling to gain possession of the ball, now known as a "goalmouth scramble")' which would allow you to use "goalmouth scramble" for the second instance of "scrimmage".
 * Why are the times of two of the goals marked as "disputed" in the "Details" subsection? The body text doesn't say there's a dispute about Morris's goal's timing, and doesn't give the time of Kinnaird's second.
 * "The club's committee, however, returned the Cup to the FA": suggest "Wanderers' committee -- we haven't said the name of the team yet in the "Post-match" section so this would be kinder to the reader.
 * "after which the focus was instead placed on teams open to all ranks representing individual battalions within the corps, which took part in the FA Amateur Cup and army-specific competitions": what does "which took part" refer to? The teams open to all ranks?  I think so but I think this could be more clearly phrased.
 * - thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review by ZooBlazer
For the most part everything looks good. Just one small suggestion for the second image. --  Zoo Blazer  23:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * File:1896 FA Cup.jpg - Used in the infobox, has alt text, and is properly licensed.
 * File:Cricket, WG Grace, 1891- Kennington Oval.jpg - Use in the article makes sense as this was the location of the semis and final. Image has alt text and is properly licensed. Maybe add the page number that the image is from for the source link.
 * - done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ChrisTheDude Oh, I just meant adding the page number with the source in the image's summary (probably have to do it on Commons). Just because the source that's used has over 500 pages. --  Zoo Blazer  17:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - yeah, that's what I did ...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ChrisTheDude Weird, the page wasn't showing that revision for me a few minutes ago. Oh well, looks good now, so happy to pass the image review. --  Zoo Blazer  18:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur Fitzgerald Kinnaird.jpg - Everything looks good for this one.
 * Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - might not be immediately clear from the out-of-sequence back-and-forth above but this has been done and ZB passed the IR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

 * "went on to defeat Pilgrims 6–0 and Druids 8–0" ==> maybe indicate these were the second and third rounds respectively
 * "The Sheffield and ... dribbling was "excellent"" ==> it seems more logical to me to put this sentence after the following one
 * "the Wanderers were defeated 3–1" ==> this result is included in the Football World Championship article, maybe you can link it?
 * Nice to see another FA Cup final article at FAC. Great work! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - done the first two. I'm reluctant to link to Football World Championship as there was absolutely no suggestion in 1878 that the match was for any sort of championship, let alone the championship of the world.  It was simply a friendly between two teams who by coincidence were the cup-holders of their respective countries.  I feel that linking to that article would give readers the false impression that the match was arranged or promoted as being for a championship..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS
That's all I spotted, other than how much of a nightmare those jerseys must have been for the referee to tell apart. Nice work as usual! PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "third goal after the interval" → Perhaps a link to Half-time on "interval", just for the non-familiar
 * "In the second round they were paired with High Wycombe" → is there a reason not to link High Wycombe F.C.?
 * "on to defeat Pilgrims 6–0 and" → same here with Pilgrims F.C.
 * "won the pre-match coin toss" → perhaps link Coin flipping here?
 * I normally see goal used like this for a goalscorer with multiple goals, like with Kenrick:  to give ⚽ 5', 65'
 * - thanks for your review. All done!  The only reason I hadn't linked those two clubs is that I didn't realise/never thought to check that they had articles :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks great, happy to support! PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-check upon request. I am going to assume, once more, that these English local newspapers are reliable. Is SportsBook the same as SportsBooks Limited? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Link added, I simply didn't realise (and didn't think to check) that the company had an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Evening Jo-Jo, is this a pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Doing some light spotchecking, and wonder if #36 is a bit WP:SYNTH - it refers to the practice of substitutes in general, not about what would have happened in a specific game of 1878. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is there to support the fact that the concept of substitutes was still more than 80 years away from being introduced to the sport at the time. Is it SYNTH to say that, given that the concept of subs did not exist in 1878, the team could not have brought on a sub if the player had left the game?  Happy to rework that sentence but I feel like if the bit about there being no subs was removed completely, readers might think "why didn't they just bring on a sub...."...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is the part "had he left the game, his team would have been required to continue with fewer players" - not being familiar with football rules, is there no third option beyond that and substitutes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. For around a hundred years until the introduction of subs in the 1960s, if a player was injured and unable to continue, the team had to simply play on without them i.e. with a reduced number of players -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How about if I reword it to something like "had he left the game, his team would not have been able to replace him as the concept of substitutes did not yet exist".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - change made :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Co-ord query

 * - not 100% sure if the above constitutes a source review pass. Can I nominate another article......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we normally like to see a nomination up for three weeks before allowing a second. For you we could be flexible Chris, but let's just nail down what Jo-Jo thinks first. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it'll be three weeks as of tomorrow ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More than six hours early :-), but go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - apologies for being over-keen :-) When I posed the initial question I hadn't checked and honestly thought it had been a bit longer than three weeks...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No harm in pushing your luck. I always used to. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)