Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1999 FA Cup Final/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 June 2020 [1].

1999 FA Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): – PeeJay 19:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the final of the 1998–99 FA Cup association football competition. It was the second part of the historic Treble won by Manchester United F.C. that season, along with the Premier League and UEFA Champions League titles. I believe the article meets all of the Featured Article criteria, as it covers the topic in question comprehensively and it is written to a professional standard (mostly by me). All of the facts in the article are supported by citations, so there should be nothing in there that comes across as biased to one side or another. There is also a good amount of supporting media, including photos and a diagram of the team line-ups that I drew in a vector graphics program. I welcome all comments, which I will be only too happy to address as soon as possible. – PeeJay 19:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WA8MTWAYC

edit

It's a great article (and good to see you've contributed a very large part), but I have some (mostly minor) comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I hope I've addressed them, or at least begun to address them, to your satisfaction. – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied. As I said, most of my comments were addressing minor issues. I'll keep my eye on the expansion of the match report and the Royal Box sentence, but I'm optimistic about this article. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background

Route to the final

Match

  • "for the FA Cup final as the swansong to their season" don't see the added value of this part as we know it's the FA Cup final and the latter part seems a bit odd to me (although I get what you're saying).
  • Three times "Champions League final" in a short span; better to replace the second one with "that final" (or whatever you come up with) and the last one with another synonym.
  • Jaap Stam is overlinked, as are Liverpool, Alan Shearer, and Ryan Giggs.
  • Maybe link substitute in "while first-choice centre-back Jaap Stam was named among the substitutes".
  • "in the starting line-up by Phil Neville.[22][3]" reforder refs.
  • Need a source for "so Ronny Johnsen and David May started in defence".
  • The summary section needs some expansion.
  • "the Manchester United goalkeeper Schmeichel gathered it at the second attempt". Why is goalkeeper linked here? If you link the word, it's better to link it in "Despite having goalkeeper Shay Given sent off within the first 15 minutes and then going 1–0 down" in the route to the final section, and to unlink it here. Also, I would recommend to link the other positions defender, midfielder, and forward, for consistency.
  • "Newcastle's Dietmar Hamann then received the first booking of the game for late tackle on Phil Neville". Link booking in "Roy Keane then received a second booking and was sent off for a cynical foul on Marc Overmars" in the last paragraph of the route to the final section instead of here.
  • "crafted first by Cole then by Paul Scholes with a well-weighted first time ball" maybe better to put Andy Cole instead of Cole alone, as it's been a while since he's been mentioned. Also, think it's better to drop "Paul" in this sentence, as it would be the fourth time his full name is mentioned throughout the article.
  • Better to drop "Peter" in "a powerfully hit long-range effort just being diverted away from goal by Peter Schmeichel".
  • Same with "Ruud" in "Newcastle manager Ruud Gullit, who knew the match was fading from his team".
  • Link Didier Domi in "Solskjær beat Didier Domi to Dabizas' clearance and passed to Sheringham".
  • Maybe rewrite "of the Dane's right-hand post and the game finished 2–0 to Manchester United" to something like "of the Dane's right-hand post", as the game finished 2–0 to Manchester United".
    • I've added a comma after 'post', but I think it's fine to say "and the game finished..." as the fact that the final score was 2–0 is directly down to the fact that Maric missed that effort (as did other Newcastle players). – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match

  • "Also present in the Royal Box were the Duke and Duchess of Kent (the Duke performing his role as President of The Football Association), Prime Minister Tony Blair, FA chief executive Geoff Thompson, Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards and Newcastle chairman John Hall." this needs to be sourced.
    • I'll do my best to find one. If I can't find one in the next few days, I'll delete the sentence. – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WA8MTWAYC I feel I know what the answer is going to be here, but would the DVD of the final be a sufficient source if those people are visible in shot, even if they're not explicitly named by the commentary? The Duke and Duchess of Kent are named at the start of the match when the teams are presented to the royal contingent, but that's it (other than an oblique reference to Tony Blair watching the match, although it's not obvious from that source that he was watching at Wembley rather than on TV). – PeeJay 11:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I don't think it's concrete enough/sufficient. I had a look on the Internet, but found no credible source. Maybe it's best to remove it, since it has a low added value (in my opinion). Another solution is to hope it's reported in a newspaper (if you're subscribed to a newspaper database). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write the names of the Duke and Duchess of Kent (Edward and Katharine).
  • Link Barcelona in "People say that going to Barcelona without Roy Keane will be a major hurdle"".
  • "Having claimed an unprecedented third Double in six seasons" better to drop "unprecedented" as it sounds rather informal.
  • Double doesn't need to be capitalized in "Having claimed an unprecedented third Double in six seasons".
    • I think it does, since "the Double" is a specific achievement in this context (i.e. the English league and FA Cup in the same season). If we were referring to "a league and cup double" in the generic form, I would agree, but this is the Double. – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same applies to treble in "the Champions League final in Barcelona four days later to claim the Treble".
  • "Their FA Cup triumph would also have qualified them for the 1999 FA Charity Shield and the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup, but their position as league winners meant that they had already qualified for the Charity Shield and the higher-tier Champions League; therefore, the other place in the Charity Shield went to league runners-up Arsenal, while the UEFA Cup place usually reserved for the cup winners went to Newcastle as cup runners-up." where's the source for the parts about the Charity Shield?
  • "Second Round" (two times in the last paragraph) doesn't need to be capitalized.
  • Neither does "Third Round" in "Their place in the Third Round was given to a "lucky loser"".
  • Link lucky loser.
  • "Manchester United were knocked out of the Club World Championship at the group stage after losing to hosts Vasco da Gama and drawing with Mexican club Necaxa, their only victory coming against Australian representatives South Melbourne." Source?

Images

Sources

Comments by Sarastro

edit

Oppose: I think we're struggling a little bit to meet Criterion 1a right now. At the very least, this needs a considerable copy-edit by someone familiar with FAC. Here are a few examples, but this is not an exhaustive list and simply fixing these would not be enough to address my concerns over prose.

  • "It was contested between Manchester United and Newcastle United, with goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes giving Manchester United a 2–0 win to claim their 10th FA Cup title.": The noun plus -ing construction is usually best avoided, and this would perhaps be better as "It was contested between Manchester United and Newcastle United. Goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes gave Manchester United a 2–0 win to claim their 10th FA Cup title", but that would still leave "sports-speak"/"journalese" "gave Manchester United a ... win". I'd be inclined to rewrite the whole thing as "Manchester United defeated Arsenal 2-0, with goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes, to claim their 10th FA Cup."
  • "It was the second part of the treble of trophies Manchester United won during the 1998–99 season, which was completed four days later, when they won the Champions League.": As written, this could mean that the 1998-99 season was completed four days later (which I appreciate is technically true, but I don't think that is the intention here!); what about "It was the second of three trophies won by Manchester United during the 1998-99 season, a treble they completed four days later when they won the Champions League." It may even be worth slipping "historic" in there somewhere.
  • "Manchester United's route to the final saw them face Premier League opposition in every round except the fifth": Again, slipping into journalese with "route to the final". And I personally loathe using "saw" in this way, but I think I'm fighting a losing battle over that. What about "Manchester United were drawn against Premier League opposition in every round of the competition except the fifth"?
  • "Since Manchester United qualified for the 1999–2000 UEFA Champions League as title holders and winners of the 1998–99 FA Premier League, England's place in the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup, now reserved for the FA Cup winners following the dissolution of the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup at the end of the season, was given to Newcastle United as the runners-up.": This is very long and tricky to follow. It is a lot of words for very little pay-off. What about cutting it right back to "As Manchester United had already qualified for the Champions League, the place in the UEFA Cup reserved for FA Cup Winners was given to Newcastle United as runners up." The explanations can wait for the main body.
  • "Manchester United did not defend their FA Cup title, choosing instead to participate in the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship in Brazil, believing that it would help The Football Association's bid to host the 2006 FIFA World Cup (which was eventually awarded to the German Football Association)." Might be a bit tighter if we had something like "Rather than defend their FA Cup Title, Manchester United elected to participate in the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship in Brazil...", and I wonder do we need the information about it going to Germany? Or could we just have "ultimately unsuccessful bid"? (This point isn't actually too big a deal for me)
  • Examples (and there are plenty more) of sports journalese in the main body: "having clinched", "Manchester United also came out on top", "Third Round Proper" (for the casual reader, this is better as simply "Third Round" or a note should be added explaining that there are preliminary rounds, hence the "proper"), "The Fifth Round saw Newcastle drawn at home" (also, why are we capitalising Third Round, Fourth Round, etc?), "opened the scoring", "selection dilemma", "The first half was full of incident", "long-range effort" (the last two sound exactly like a newspaper report, a style best avoided in an encyclopedia)...
  • I'm not sure the long list of titles won by the two teams in the background section is necessary. We could say how many times they won, but do we really need to list all the years? Sarastro (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing: There are no problems with any of the sources used, and a quick check revealed no obvious issues with verification or close paraphrasing. But there are perhaps a couple of concerns. One minor point: "is often included in lists of the greatest matches in the history of the tournament": We cite this using three lists of greatest matches. We would be far better finding a source that explicitly says "the match is often included in lists of greatest matches". Otherwise, we should really say "the match was named as one of the greatest FA Cup games by source X, Y and Z."

A bigger issue is that almost all of the sources used are match reports from 1999: 31 out of 45 references are to news sources dated 1999. While there is nothing wrong as such with using contemporary reports, it does mean that we may not be setting the match in its proper context, and we do not get a deeper look at what it all meant. Given the importance of the game, I find it hard to believe that no-one has talked about it since. Is the best we can do a few post-match quotes? We do not appear to have used this article from 2019 about the treble. I notice that the book The Impossible Treble is used as a reference, but only two pages, and only twice in the article. Is there really nothing else in this book about the game? Has Gullit not talked about it? Did Ferguson not mention it in his autobiography? Have none of the players talked about it since? Are there no scholarly sources that look at the game? Because of this I don't think we are meeting Criteria 1c.

I am happy to revisit this if pinged (although as I said, simply answering each point would not convince me to strike my oppose. I think the article needs looking at in some depth), but currently, I'm afraid that I don't believe the article meets the criteria. Sorry. Sarastro (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you're not happy with the quality of the article, Sarastro1. I'll do my best to go over the prose with a fine-toothed comb in the coming days, although I'm in the middle of a house move, so it will be difficult. At the very least, I'll address the comments you've made above and try to make improvements in the little time I have available this weekend. The trouble with 'sports-ese' is that that is how the match is mostly discussed in reliable sources. I could try to say "Player X shot from 35 yards out" based on my own assessment of the distance, but when all reliable sources say it was a "long-range effort", I don't see how I'm able to say anything different without violating WP:OR. Regarding the sourcing, I have only a few relevant books at my disposal right now, though I do have Ferguson's autobiography at my parents' house. I'll see if I can get hold of it. Nevertheless, I fear there may not be much to say about the deeper meaning of the game; The Impossible Treble describes it as "the simplest leg of the triple-trophy haul", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. – PeeJay 11:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the sources use a word doesn't mean that we have to use the same one; and it is infinitely preferable in many ways to use a different one. "Long-range effort" is easily changed into the less tabloidy "long-range shot". Even scraps from other sources would be good, and in all honesty, I think adding "the simplest leg of the triple-trophy haul" is exactly the type of thing that the article needs to give it some context. Good luck with the house move, incidentally; you have my sympathy! Sarastro (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you mean now. I do worry that if we avoid sports-ese entirely we run the risk of the language we use becoming a little stale (there's only so many encyclopaedia-friendly synonyms for the word 'shot', for example) but I'll do my best to keep any rewrites FA-friendly. – PeeJay 14:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

Putting down a marker to look at this later. Harrias talk 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Generally, I really like this section: I think that it puts the match into good context, explaining the level the two teams were operating on. I would like to see a little more explanation of what the FA Cup itself is: it doesn't need to be loads, just a couple of sentences so that a reader understands what this is the final of.
  • Avoid Noun plus -ing: it appears a couple of times in this section: "with Manchester United winning" and I can see some examples later on. A quick way of finding some of these would be to use the find function to search for , with.
Route to the final
  • "..the last team to beat them all season." What is sourcing this? Also, if this is going to be mentioned, more context should be provided about when it happened, even if just by saying "three weeks earlier" or similar.
  • "Home draws in the Sixth Round for both teams ensured that they had both been drawn at home in every round of the competition.." I'm not keen on the repetition of "home" and "both" here, it jars me.
  • The table needs to be made accessible to meet the requirements of MOS:DTT (row and column scopes and a caption to be added).
Match details
Post-match
Legacy
  • Unless there is more to add here, I would merge this single-sentence section into "Post-match".
References
  • What makes "FCHD.info" a reliable source?
  • What makes "StretfordEnd.co.uk" a reliable source?
  • Phil McNulty has a page we can link to.
  • So does Henry Winter.
  • What makes "unitedkits.com" a reliable source?
  • Matt Lawton (journalist) has a page we can link to.
  • What makes "kassiesa.net" a reliable source?
  • Ref #58 "Brown, Luke (20 May 2016)" is behind The Telegraph's subscription wall, add |url-access=subscription

Overall this looks pretty decent, but in need of tidying to meet the FA standards. I do think that it would have benefited from going through the Good article process before coming here, where a lot of the basics could have been picked up. I have not completed a detailed prose review, as Sarastro1 has covered that, and I await their further comments before looking too much at the prose myself. Sourcing wise, I've got a couple of books on my shelf which might be help, I'll take a look when I get a chance. Harrias talk 10:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll take the blame for suggesting it come straight here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi, I note Saratro's recommendation for a copyedit by a FAC regular, as well as Harrias' concerns. There seems to be about 4K worth of extra info since Sarastro's review as well. I think it's best we archive this now and work on improvements, including the independent copyedit, outside the FAC process. After that, GAN or PR or both would be helpful before having another go here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1999_FA_Cup_Final/archive1&oldid=963817858"