Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Football League Championship play-off Final/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 24 December 2020 [1].

2006 Football League Championship play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the world's most valuable single soccer match. This one was pretty one-sided but interesting nevertheless, with the added spice of the losing team having been managed by the winning team's manager. The Londoners triumphed with a header, an own goal and a penalty. As ever, thanks to everyone who participates in a constructive manner, and I'll do my utmost to get to all points raised as soon as humanly possible. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

Very few issues I could find really. A few minor points above to look at. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all your points? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can see I think. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Not an issue for this article, but in reviewing this I looked back over the other play-off finals that have made it to FA, and I noticed an oddity: the article on the 1998 final says winning was worth 5-10 million pounds, but the 1993 final was apparently worth 20 million. Seems odd that it went down that year, though I suppose you're just following the sources.
    Yes, I'm just using the sources as you noted. I'll re-check them, but at a cursory glance (and during the FAC source checks) nothing untoward was uncovered. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AHA, Mike Christie, you were spot on. I checked the paper source (Foster, p. 112) and I had mis-typed, so that should have been £5m not £20m...! Great spot, thank you!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Mike Christie, it appears that while the contemporary estimates for the 1998 final were 5 to 10 million, the Foster source suggested up to £20m, so I've incorporated that in the 1998 article too. Thanks again, I'm annoyed at myself for the error. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made one copyedit, changing "noted" to "commented", since "noted" implies that it's true; I think it should be avoided when quoting opinions. There's another use at the end: Eurosport noted that Watford had switched from their "normally attractive footballing principles to use the long ball into the channels" as a direct result of the condition of the playing surface at the Millennium Stadium. This is a bit harder to replace (you already have "suggested" and "commented" nearby) but I think it would be worth finding another word.
    I've made a change here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet; straightforwardly written and nothing wrong with it that I can see. I'll read it through again tomorrow to be on the safe side and I expect to support then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie thanks. I didn't think it was that short, but it's certainly sweet, but I would say that. Cheers for your interest, let me know if you find anything else that I need to address. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can't find anything else to complain about. And you're right, it's not short for an FA. I came to it from biblical criticism so I think I just meant it was not a long article. Have read through again and made a couple more copyedits; please revert anything you disagree with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. And almost literally holy moly, that biblical criticism article is way too long, should be split!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks not done since I've spot checked this nominator in the past & they are an experienced FA writer
  • All reliable sources
  • Consistent linking, publisher/website inclusion
  • (Suggestion) You could archive ref 14 as the only one without the an archive link
  • Since the one point above is not required, I've found no issues – in short, the sourcing is TRM standard :) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, thank you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

[edit]

Happy to review. Just a few minor comments:

  • The top two teams of the 2005–06 Football League Championship season gained automatic promotion to the Premiership --> any chance of telling the reader who they were?
  • Watford ended the season in third position ... the losing semi-finalists. --> from the lead I can't tell who beat whom in the semi-finals. Is there no way to rephrase all this so that this is clear yet doesn't take more space? Something along the lines of "Third-placed Watford defeated fourth-placed Preston in the first semi-final, while fifth-placed Leeds beat sixth-placed Palace in the second semi."
  • The 2006 final was refereed by --> not sure we need the 2006 here
  • The last paragraph of the Route to the final section has 7 occurences of Watford. Any chance of reducing that?
  • but it was rejected by Mike Dean --> I guess if the players' names are reduced to last name only on subsequent mentions, then the referee's name should too?
  • The second paragraph in the Summary section is using the "before" construction a bit too much I think
  • saying: "We won't go down ... "I think the best --> looks like a stray "
  • and we won't go down". --> Move the . inside the " as per MOS:INOROUT
  • they will bounce back". --> same thing. There are a few more like this that need fixing.
  • He added: "we're --> capital W
  • BBC --> link
  • they had failed to deal with Watford's "high-tempo approach" nor with their threat from set pieces --> that "nor" strikes me as odd. I'm not a native speaker, so it may be fine, but I would expect "and" here.
  • Derry had not seen the footage of game --> the game
  • when, in 2016, he commented on it --> perhaps remind the reader somehow that he had caused the penalty, before giving the quote

That is all from me. As I said, just very minor points. It reads well and seems to cover all the key aspects of the event. I have not looked at the sources. I trust Aza24's judgment. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon thanks, I'm just heading to bed so I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon thanks again, I've addressed all of the above besides the "nor" comment which reads fine to me. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to secure your support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One day I will get the hang of double negatives in the English language, but it won't be this year. All looks fine to me, so I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Amakuru

[edit]

Route to the final section:

  • I've done a couple of very minor tweaks, but otherwise no issues with this section.

Background:

  • "Watford had also previously participated in one play-off final" - does this mean that Leeds had also played in just one final previously? We are told about the last one, but not sure if they were in any others before that.
    Reworded to address this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boothroyd was the first-team coach at Leeds United until he left in March 2005 to take the Watford manager's role" - are "first-team coach" and "manager" the same thing?
    No. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boothroyd had been promoted from academy football by the Leeds manager Kevin Blackwell, who himself had experienced failure in the play-off final three years earlier when he was assistant to Neil Warnock whose Sheffield United team lost 3–0 to Wolverhampton Wanderers" - this sentence feels slightly long to me, with a few too many diversions as it makes it way from Boothroyd to Sheffield United's defeat to Wolves. Also, you could argue that the "whose Sheffield United team" bit could refer to Blackwell too, as he was the assistant there.
    Split sentence, but unclear what you mean about Blackwell, that 2003 defeat pre-dated Blackwell as a coach there and post-dated his time as a player there. What am I missing? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well what I mean is that even when he was merely the assistant, you could still say "his Sheffield United team", just as you would for a player or any other person affiliated with the club at the time. It could, for example, be rephrased to "he was assistant to Neil Warnock as their Sheffield United team lost 3–0 to Wolverhampton Wanderers". No biggy if you don't agree though.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Already re-phrased. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had been hosted by the Millennium Stadium the previous day" - you could just say "the stadium", as we name-droppped Millennium Stadium in the prior sentence to this one.
    Repeat removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was estimated to be worth up to £40 million to the successful team" - the source does not qualify it as "up to", it just gives says it's an estimate: "a match estimated to be worth £40m to the winner"
    Two other sources repeated, one of which says £20m, other says £35m so "up to £40m" is now just dandy. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leeds' starting eleven". MOS:POSS advises to use 's rather than just ' - unless you deem that "Leeds's" is difficult to pronounce, in which case the manual of style suggests rewording...
    Fucking modern times. There are two instances of it actually, in the prose, and one esteemed newspaper uses the s' too. I don't think Leeds's is difficult to pronounce, I think it's shite styling though. Adding it creates a problem which doesn't exist in the first place, Leeds' is completely unambiguous, understandable and pronounceable. Tsk. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watford were considered narrow favourites to win the match by bookmakers" - unsure if this is really an issue or not, but the source does not actually directly say that the bookies had Watford as favourites, it simply quotes Marlon King as saying "Whatever the bookies say, we are underdogs". It's possible that the King was actually mistaken about that, and maybe the Guardian didn't bother checking whether what he'd said was accurate?
    That very source says "Odds: Leeds 17-10, Draw 21-10, Watford 8-5" so I'll stick I think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru cheers, awaiting tranche numero deux. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match:

  • "Boothroyd [...] was circumspect" - according to the dictionary, circumspect means "wary" or "careful not to take risks". It then quotes him as saying "We won't go down", which sounds like quite a definite statement, and perhaps not very circumspect?
    Merriam-Webster says circumspect means "careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences" and that's what he's doing here. And the circumspection relates to his first comment rather than he second. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eurosport observed that..." - per a comment at my previous FAC, I gather that we're not supposed to describe an organisation as saying something.
    Well if there's no author named I don't see a problem with this at all. It meets attribution requirements and is true. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This ensured the club finished the season bottom..." - just wondering if "ensured" is the correct term here. Presumably it was still possible for them to avoid finishing bottom, if they had scored more points, so I don't think the points deduction on its own could be said to have ensured that outcome.
    But the points deduction happened at the end of the season and per the source "The 10-point deduction - in accordance with Football League rules - means Leeds will finish the season at the bottom of the Championship. so I don't see an issue with this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals" - this fact is not directly stated in the body of the article (although I suppose technically you could infer it if you combine the league table with the information on which clubs took part in the play-offs... probablyt better to just state it directly though).
    We're getting into Sky is Blue territory now, with all the references, including the league table ref. To crowbar this into the prose would really detract. Unless you have an elegant suggestion, I think this is cited enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing else really. That concludes my review. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru cheers, all comments addressed and/or responded to above. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, you have an answer for everything... All done and dusted then, and happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and needs more reviews. I shall add it to urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I think this is "oven ready". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Burnt to a crisp. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 24 December 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/2006_Football_League_Championship_play-off_Final/archive1&oldid=996079756"