Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2021 [1].

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some have described this as one of, if not the, biggest upset in English "soccer". Top-division Coventry "Sky Blues" City, riding high in the First Division and winners of the oldest soccer football cup in the world just two years before were quite literally humbled by a bunch of "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" playing for non-League club Sutton "Amber and Chocolates" United. A hard one for my co-nom (a Cov fan) to swallow but a pleasure for the footballing world who love this kind of "David beats Goliath" story. And it's true too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments and for helping out with the kit! I've tried to address your comments, but of course, please do let me know if anything is unsatisfactory or you spot anything else you'd like to see fixed! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Four weeks in and this nomination shows little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless there is more activity here over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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
Prose
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) 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I'll take a look at these comments presently. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I think I've addressed/responded to everything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I hope to have something soon. Epicgenius (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Epicgenius: and I hope you're well. Just wondering if you're likely to have time for a review on this one soon? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I will definitely have a look today. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visitors went into the match as strong favourites, a reflection of the gulf in divisions that separated the two teams. - Coventry being the visitors, I assume. This might have been alluded to in the previous sentence.
    I have clarified that Coventry were the away team.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the most famous 'giant-killings' in the competition's history, notable for being one of the few instances when a non-League side defeated a club from the highest tier of English football. - For some reason, I am wary of starting this paragraph with "it", especially when the next sentence also starts with "it". Additionally, when I read "notable for being one of the few instances...", I thought this could probably be condensed, e.g. "and it was one of the few instances...".
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the 1969–70 FA Cup - Would this need to contain a comma afterward, or is it not necessary in British English?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to their opponents, Sutton's players were not professional footballers, and their squad included bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks - I would rephrase "...professional footballers, and their squad..." seems like it would be better off as two thoughts, e.g. "...professional footballers; their squad..." This is hilarious, by the way, with a bunch of clerks, managers, and bricklayers beating professional footballers. Kind of like Lee Vilenski's recent nom about the 22-year-old Chinese newcomer winning a snooker tournament.
    The two points are related, obviously, but I guess it works with a semicolon so Done. I know what you mean about the craziness of this achievement... as a Coventry supporter I didn't enjoy it at the time, but 30+ years on I can certainly enjoy the spectacular achievement here; it is one of the things that makes the FA Cup a special competition.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regular crowd capacity at Sutton's Gander Green Lane ground was around 2,000 but this had been expanded to 8,000 for the cup match - It is not necessary to change anything here, but this seems like a large expansion. How was it accomplished?
    Ooh, it seems you've found an error here. The source says the capacity was increased *by* 2,000 to 8,000, not from 2,000. I've amended with a bit of WP:CALC so that it now says it's a 6,000 to 8,000 increase.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Good thing that was caught, then. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goalscorers Rains and Hanlan made an appearance on Terry Wogan's chat show the following Monday - To me, this seems somewhat out of place with the rest of the paragraph, which is commentary on the match. To make this relevant to the paragraph, what did Rains and Hanlan say?
    I have had a hunt around, but I can't find any clips of the Wogan appearance or details on what happened. I have, however, split the paragraph into a "player-focused" and "media-focused" reactions, with the news that Hanlan took the afternoon off for his Wogan appearance and mention of subsequent media commitments dovetailed in. Hope that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look and the new phrasing looks fine. I just believed it was a little strange to have the paragraph end like that. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In front of Norwich's largest crowd of the season, including around 6,000 visiting supporters - Does that match have a link? Maybe I did not see it.
    No, there is no article for the Norwich–Sutton game and I suspect it wouldn't be considered notable enough to merit one - only a very few individual matches rate their own page. We could, I suppose, include a link to 1988–89 Norwich City F.C. season but it seems a bit tangential to this topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sutton United held the record as - This can probably be simply "Sutton United was".
    Done (although in British English, teams are regarded as plural entities so it's "Sutton United were...")  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally forgot about that. "Sutton United were..." is fine, I was just pointing out how the preceding wording was unnecessarily long. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following year the match was voted as one of the greatest ever FA Cup matches by ESPN viewers. - I would also recommend putting this in active voice.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, mostly minor stuff. I will note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all your points addressed for now, @Epicgenius:. Thanks again for the review and please let us know of anything else you find!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I have looked and can't find any further substantive issues. I'm happy to support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit
  • Worth linking Football Association in "Football Association Challenge Cup"?
  • Coventry City is linked in the fourth paragraph of the background section but is used in the previous paragraph.
  • "this had been expanded to 8,000 for the cup match.[27][16]", not a massive issue but the refs are out of numerical order here.
  • Tony Rains' first name is used in both paragraphs of the match summary, the second usage could probably be dropped.
  • The match report doesn't seem to work for me, is it still active?
  • In the Post-match and Legacy sections, fourth round is capitalised but not in uses prior to this. Is that deliberate?

Not much I can really complain about and the points above are generally very minor. I reviewed this for GA and since then it's had further improvements at this FAC so I'm happy with the article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack I've only gone and fixed all those up, thanks so much (both for this review and the GAN), much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Modussicandi

edit
  • Do we need a comma after "penalty area" in "Steve Sedgley passed the ball into the Sutton penalty area allowing David Phillips to shoot past an advancing Roffey ..."?
  • "Williams offered a realistic perspective on the game" - "realistic" sounds as though this were Wikipedia's assessment since the source doesn't explicitly say his comments were realistic. Perhaps the text would represent the source more accurately if it just said "Williams admitted that ...".
  • "Luton Town, who played in the Conference Premier" - do we need to know what tier in the pyramid the Conference Premier was at the time? Or is it obvious that they're fifth-tier, too?

These points are obviously minute. I'm happy to support but let me know what you think about the above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi thanks very much for your comments, all have been incorporated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Changing to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 thanks, I've responded, perhaps you could clarify? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 cheers, done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this has sufficient support and source/image reviews, can I raise another collaborative FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2021 (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/Sutton_United_2–1_Coventry_City_(1989)/archive1&oldid=1021739384"