Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1999 Football League First Division play-off Final/archive1

1999 Football League First Division play-off Final

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is another dive into the single most valuable association football match in the world. Obviously a disappointment here since the Tractor Boys didn't quite make it, but a fun ride nevertheless and some big names of English football involved too. As always, sensible and constructive criticism is welcomed and will be actioned as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Images appear to be freely licensed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What about unconstructive criticism? Therapyisgood (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude

 * Comments on the lead
 * The top division should be referred to throughout as the Premier League. "Premiership" was a sponsored name.
 * "Bolton Wanderers ended the season in fifth position while Watford sixth" - missing word near the end I think
 * "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining as Watford won the match 2–0" => "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining and Watford won the match 2–0" ("as" suggests they won with two minutes remaining)
 * "since its inception in 1992–93 season" => "since its inception in the 1992–93 season"
 * "It also meant that Watford were promoted second successive season" - missing words I think
 * Putting this here partly as a placeholder - I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments on the next bit
 * "Michael Johansen volleyed the ball past Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal, and securing....." - bit of a grammar issue there. Probably best just to remove the "and"
 * Frandsen is mentioned for the first time without his forename or a wikilink
 * "despite Holland's 20-yard (18 m) strike making it 4–3 to Ipswich in the 116th minute, the tie ended 4–4 on aggregate" - the tie didn't end 4-4 on aggregate despite Holland's goal, it ended 4-4 on aggregate because of his goal. Suggest a re-wording here.
 * "Watford faced Birmingham City in their play-off semi-final and played the first leg away at Vicarage Road" - Watford played away at Vicarage Road??
 * "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland had hit" => "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland hit". Also suggest the second "before" in this sentence be changed to "and" to avoid repetition..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments on the rest
 * "Watford manager Graham Taylor last managed a team" => "Watford manager Graham Taylor had last managed a team"
 * "Bolton's top scorer in the league was Taylor who had fifteen goals for the season" - as a completely different Taylor was just mentioned in the last sentence, might be worth giving his full name to make this 100% clear
 * "Despite Bolton dominating the midfield, in the eleventh minute Steve Palmer's long ball forward was allowed to bounce before Kennedy's shot was high over the bar" - this is a bit unclear. Does all of the bit after the comma refer to a single move or two separate moves?  Also, how does this relate to Bolton dominating the midfield?
 * "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was defended by Robinson and Page" - not sure I have ever seen the wording that Player X was defended by Player Y......?
 * "Guðjohnsen had another chance after breaking free but was defended by Page" - same again
 * I would write Bolton Wanderers in full in the details section
 * "Elton John had watched the match live from Seattle said" => "Elton John, who had watched the match live from Seattle, said"
 * "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, and losing 26 of their 38 matches" => "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, losing 26 of their 38 matches"
 * Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Third tranche done, many thanks. Let me know if anything else remains to be done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Follow-up
 * "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was marked by both Robinson and Page, but the ball fell to Johansen" - apologies, but I still find it hard to figure out what happened in this incident - did Guðjohnsen pass the ball to Johansen? I'm guessing not, based on the wording "the ball fell to....", which doesn't imply an intentional pass.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So you can see the source for yourself, it says "Eidur Gudjohnson is crowded out of the Watford area by Paul Robinson and Page, but the ball breaks to Michael Johansen who flashes the ball across the face of the goal." I could just ditch the first clause altogether and go for Johansen shoots wide, but I thought the first clause added flavour. Suggestions appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe say that Guðjohnsen was challenged by the other two players? That's presumably what happened.  Simply saying that he was marked by them conveys the sense that they were just hovering near to him and then somehow the ball wound up with Johansen, if that makes sense....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As you like, done! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
Coming up to the three week mark and this has only attracted one general support. If there are not further signs of a consensus to promote building over the next two or three days I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, remind me, am I or am I not allowed to seek the views of others because different co-ordinators say polar different things. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I need explicit guidance on this please. One of you has, on numerous occasions, suggested "calling in favours" while one of you has explicitly told me not to go off to seek reviewers when a FAC got stalled.  Which is it?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is fine to draw other editors' attention to a FAC, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know, perhaps all the co-ordinators should get up to speed with that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep -- while I don't think I use the expression "calling in favours", I've often suggested that nominators seek reviews in a neutrally worded manner when necessary, and haven't changed my position on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

 * "gained automatic promotion to the Premiership", noting what Chris said above regarding the use of Premiership, is this a deliberate usage or an oversight?
 * Could perhaps link overhead kick to Bicycle kick in the lead and the match summary.
 * "before a 50 yards (46 m) run", should that be yard rather than yards?
 * What is the source for the captains in the match details section?

In all honesty, I'm struggling to find much to complain about. I'll be supporting either way really but there are a handful of very minor points to look at. Kosack (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review! I addressed all your comments and as for the captains, no  sources, so that's sadly gone. Cheers,  let me know if there's anything else I can do?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to support, this is another high quality piece of work. Kosack (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.


 * Lede
 * Probably subjective but "played on 31 May 1999 at Wembley Stadium, London, between Bolton Wanderers and Watford.", perhaps "played on 31 May 1999 between Bolton Wanderers and Watford at the Wembley Stadium in London". Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It follows the format of most of the other FA/GAs I've written of this nature, and we'd never say "the Wembley Stadium"... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. - I feel like this has been said before, and doesn't quite work. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It follows the format of most of the other FAs/GAs I've written, can you suggest an alternative if you feel like it doesn't quite work as it is? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is The top two teams of the 1998–99 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premier League, while those from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; Bolton Wanderers ended the season fifth in the table, one position and one point ahead of Watford. The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. Birmingham City and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists - that we mention the remaining two teams after mentioning the structure, which is a bit odd. Maybe "The top two teams of the 1998–99 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premier League, while those from third to sixth place in the table took part in a play-off competition. Bolton Wanderers defeated Ipswich Town and Watford defeated Birmingham City in the play-off semi-finals. The two teams met in the final of the play-off, the winner receiving the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. Bolton had ended the season fifth in the table, one position and one point ahead of Watford. or similar. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a link for "overhead kick"? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like a sentence or two on how the media/teams felt about the results in the lede would help a lot. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added that Watford were considered relegation favourites and that Elton John loved it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * Watford finished ten points behind Bradford City (who were promoted in second place) and twenty-eight behind league winners Sunderland.[1] - is it worth using 10 and 28? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS allows for either. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the 6-6 in penalties is worth expanding on, as it's reasonably rare to go that high. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was the final then I'd agree, but this was the semi-final. The goals were scored, and that's what's significant. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Watford were immediately installed by William Hill as favourites for relegation from the Premier League the following season - is there any reason why we are using William Hill specifically? Were they the sponsors? Also, we should define who they are "i.e. Bookmakers. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I have in sources, I can't pick and choose which bookies remarked on things in 1999...! Added bookmakers.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've responded to and/or actioned all your comments, thanks so much for the review. Let me know how to proceed with those I haven't satisfactorily addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * hi Lee, just checking in to see if there's anything else I can do for you here? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have come up with some additional wording if you fancy, but fine to support regardless. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support
from me. Only minor thing I think would improve is this (which I undid) as it introduces the 2nd tier one sentence earlier. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking a look. I'll have a look at your suggestion.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Amakuru - Passed
General points:
 * Noting the use of Soccerway as a source for the league positions. Discussions at WT:FOOTY have mostly concluded by saying Soccerway shouldn't be used as a secondary source, or for certain purposes, but this league table looks OK as no independent commentary is being used.
 * Ref 24 should have the usual "AFS Enterprises" for 11v11.
 * Nothing else I can really see.

Spot checks:
 * [1] - both the league table and the contents of the first paragraph of "Route to the final" are confirmed by this ref.
 * [2] - mostly checks out, although pedantically, the source doesn't actually say the winning goal was volleyed past the keeper; for all we know he might have been somewhere else entirely.
 * Stuck to source, perhaps an old memory of mine... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [3] - the link seems to be wrong. It points to the same article as ref [4].
 * [4] - checks out.
 * [6] - checks out.
 * [7] - checks out.
 * [9] - checks out.
 * [10] - checks out for both.
 * [11] - checks out.
 * [12] - checks out.
 * [14] - checks out.
 * [16] - checks out.
 * [17] - checks out for both.
 * [20] - looks fine, I checked a few of the minute-by-minute things although I didn't look at every single one of them!
 * [21] - fine for the quote; it doesn't say they were "favourites" for relegation though, only that they were 4/7. Unlikely perhaps, but there might have been another team with even shorter odds than that.
 * Add that they were odds on to get relegated and that the guy writing in the Irish Indy said they were favourites, hopefully covering the concern here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [23] - checks out.
 * [24] - checks out. Although I know they did beat Cov on the last day of the season to deny us a single away win from that campaign, because I was there.
 * [26] - checks out.

Just a couple of minor things then, and this one will be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * addressed the two issues you noted, thanks for scouring those sources. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice one. You missed the things about AFS Enterprises, but I've taken the liberty of doing that one myself. Otherwise all good so I'm passing the source review. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, and thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

as this is in good stead now, with three supports, a source review and an image review, can I now start another nomination? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)