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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 January 2020 [1].

---

1927 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing my work on Cardiff City F.C. related articles comes perhaps the biggest success in the club's history. Its only major trophy in the English football system and the only time a team from outside England has claimed the FA Cup in its 100+ year history. This was originally taken to GA in 2016 by Miyagawa who seems to have left the site. So, I have picked this up, done some fine tuning and expanding where possible and believe it has enough to become a featured article. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

• File:FA_Cup_Final_1927_Programme.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi @Nikkimaria:, the image was not my upload and I'm not much use with licencing. What needs to be done to complete it? Kosack (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• First off the parameters that are currently "n.a" should be filled in, and then purpose of use should be expanded. You might find WP:FUR helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've hopefully provided adequate reasoning for the image now, let me know if it needs more. Kosack (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

• "the Football Association Challenge Cup better known as the FA Cup" reads oddly to me. This is a situation where putting "better known as the FA Cup" inside parentheses would probably make for a better read than what's there now.
• Cardiff City: The stray apostrophe in "goalkeeper's" (by the Farquharson penalty save) should be removed.
• Arsenal: "with was then followed by the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards...". A cleaner version would be "and the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards" or similar. In general, the first five words of this are throwing off the grammar more than anything.
• Post match: "saying that the superiority of Cardiff's defence that led them to victory." This would read better as "defence had led them to victory."
• Cardiff captain Keenor later commented his view of the goal". This needs "on" before "his". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points you raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I've only read the lead, and there are quite a few prose issues that need attention. Thus:

• Opening sentence: "The 1927 FA Cup Final was an association football match between Cardiff City and Arsenal on 23 April 1927 at the original Wembley Stadium (then called Empire Stadium)." Needs a comma after "Arsenal", followed by "which took place". - Done
• It should read "(then called the Empire Stadium)" - Done
• "Both teams required a single replay in different rounds to progress, but otherwise won each of their games." Why is this sentence necessary? People who don't know football won't understand the first part, and the second part is a statement of the obvious. - Removed
• "Both sides played a mixture of home and away games on their route to the final, but Arsenal were not required to play outside London after the initial fourth round match." I'd say this is pretty inconsquential detail, not really ledeworthy. - Removed
• "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley, and police reinforcements to keep fans at bay who had been sold fake tickets". Incomplete as it stands; perhaps add something like "were deployed" after "police reinforcements". - Done
• Inconsistent capitalisation, e.g. "FA Cup Final" in the opening lead sentence, and "FA Cup final" and "cup final" later on.

This is in line with the two other FA class cup final articles, 1923 and 1956. I think it's capitalised when using the actual title of the final but not when referring to the final in general. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio" – you've already said this, in the first paragraph.

Removed first use. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "having seen more than 300,000 applications for tickets" is clunky, and grammatically dubious. Suggest replace "having seen" with "from". - Done
• "Both teams had opportunities to score, but the only goal of the game was credited to Hughie Ferguson after the ball slipped out of the hands of goalkeeper Dan Lewis, and he knocked the ball into the net with his elbow." Suggest preface with "During the match...", replace "both teams" with "each team", and "and he knocked" with "who knocked". Also, for clarity I'd say "Cardiff's Hughie Ferguson" and "Arsenal's goalkeeper". - Done
• "wool" → "woollen" - Done
• "Arsenal went on to win the trophy in 1930". Relevance? (Arsenal have won the cup at least a dozen times since 1927) - Removed

Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Brianboulton:, I've addressed the issues above and added a comment. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the lead reads much better now – I've made a few more tweaks and corrected the odd typo (you can check these out). I see from the article's talk page that the origin of the "square one" phrase is disputed, so you might make your lead statement somewhat more equivocal, by replacing "which has been credited with coining the phrase" with "which according to some sources was the origin of the phrase" (I see you've hedged your bets a bit in the main text). I doubt I'll have time to check out the rest of the prose, but I wish you good luck with this nomination – your dedication to the affairs of Cardiff FC is admirable! Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Brian. I've amended the "back to square one" sentence as per your suggestion also. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

Note that I read it from a Canadian English perspective, so please let me know if any comments made are simply due to language differences.

• Like the image of the programme included in the infobox, adds a nice touch.

• "...at the original Wembley Stadium (then called the Empire Stadium)." This is more personal preference I think, but wouldn't it make more sense to note the contemporary name of the stadium, and then put the later name in brackets: something like "at the Empire Stadium (the original Wembley Stadium)."

• "The match was watched by 91,206 in the stadium, from more than 300,000 applications for tickets..." This may be a English variant issue, but it feels odd to me. It would seem more natural to note the larger number first, so for example: "There were more than 300,000 applications for tickets, with 91,206 attending the match in the stadium..."

• "Afterwards, he blamed his new woollen jersey, saying that it was greasy." This could be improved I think: "Lewis later blamed his new wollen jersey, saying it was greasy."

• "Newspaper reports indicated that they were the better team..." Little unclear of who was the better team: Cardiff City or Darlington?

• "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading; with FA Cup semi-finals being held at neutral venues,[10] the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton. Reading had reached the semi-final for the first time in their history." This whole section could be worded better: "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading, who had reached the semi-final for the first time. FA Cup semi-finals were being held at neutral venues, so the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton."

Will add more later. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Kaiser Matias, I've addressed the points above so far. Let me know when you have more. Kosack (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some more:

• "...also meeting First Division opposition with a tie against Sheffield United at Bramall Lane." Could be "also meeting a First Division opponent..." Furthermore, you note it was a tie in the prose, and that each team had 3 goals, but the summary on the side has a score of 3–2 for Arsenal. Am I just reading incorrectly, or is something not adding up?

• Fixed the first point. In British English, the tie is referring to the match rather than the result. For example, like it's use in this newspaper headline. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "The first as the result of a scramble which ended with Jimmy Brain heading the ball into the net for Arsenal." Change: "The first was the result of a scramble..."

• "...and two years earlier in 1925, they were defeated finalists." Simplify the latter half: "they were defeated in the final."

• "Arsenal manager Herbert Chapman held a press conference prior to the final on 21 April..." To avoid ambiguitity: "Chapman held a press conference on 21 April, prior to the final..." (it otherwise sounds like the final was on 21 April).

• "... as well as the officials; the referee William F. Bunnell from Preston, and the linesmen G.E. Watson from Kent and M. Brewitt from Lincoln." I'd switch the semi-colon to a colon.

• "...acquired the match ball after the game and donated it to the Church." By "the Church" was it any particular physical church, or a specific denomination as a whole? It sounds like the latter, but is a little unclear, and as Farquharson was Irish, it could be one of several different ones.

• It was likely his denomination but the ref doesn't support that unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "...saying that the wool was greasy and allowed the ball to slip from his grip." Was there any reason why the wool would be greasy? Just from wear and tear of previous matches? Not that this has to go into the article, I'm more curious myself.

• I'm not entirely sure, perhaps a new Jersey would not initially absorb any moisture leaving it on the surface. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Cardiff reached the FA Cup Final once more in 2018; where they lost by one goal to nil against Portsmouth." You can either replace the semi-colon with a comma, or just delete the "where". As it stands it doesn't work grammatically.

Other than that should be good. For someone who isn't too familiar with football, especially the history like this, I found it easy enough to follow along with, so that's a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kaiser matias: Thanks again, I've addressed the points above and added comments where necessary. Let me know if there's anymore. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, happy with the replies here, and with the way it looks now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review: pass[edit]

• Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
• The link to ref #9 "'Darling of the Gods' Tom Farquharson, Irish footballing migrant" doesn't work; is it possible to find an archived version?
• Consider linking the newspapers where pages exist. Western Daily Press, for example.
• Ref #15 "Past Cup-Winners Disapear" is that your typo, or the sources?
• Really picky point: your long references have full-stops, could you include them in your short references too?
• Also, refs #19 and #20 use "Name (YYYY): p. xx" while otherwise the articles uses the more traditional "Name YYYY, p. xx".
• What makes 11v11.com a reliable source?

• The website is the official online presence of the Association of Football Statisticians. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ref #41 "Rothmans Football Yearbook" add editor details.
• Ref #60 "Herbert Chapman - Overview" needs to be a spaced endash, per our MOS, irrespective of the source formatting.

That's it, nothing major. Harrias ^talk 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Harrias:, thanks very much for taking a look. I've addressed all of the issues raised above and replied where necessary. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good. Harrias ^talk 11:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Reading again now....

Curtis went on a run for Cardiff, who passed it forward near the box to Ferguson. = Cardiff didn't pass it forward..." Curtis went on a run for Cardiff before passing it forward near the box to Ferguson."?

Otherwise looking good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for taking a look, I've amended the point above. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski[edit]

• Taking a look now - looks pretty good from a scan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede

• on 23 April 1927 at the Empire Stadium (the original Wembley Stadium). - Was this known as the Empire Stadium at the time. We should refer to it as that (otherwise it's a WP:RECENTISM issue). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, at the time it was known as Empire Stadium. Do you mean to remove the Wembley part? Kosack (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The final was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (better known as the FA Cup). - I'd like this reworded. It feels weird linking to the FA in the name of the cup. Something like The final was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup), organised by the Football Association.
• "The victory by Cardiff", can we define the score and that Cardiff won before this sentence? Otherwise it makes little sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• won by a team outside England - factually incorrect. Reword to won by a team based outside England. Plenty of teas have won the title outside of England, and in this case, Cardiff won the title in England. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The sides - can we call them teams or clubs in the lede? "sides" is a little jargony for the second paragraph. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio - perhaps mention where/how it was broadcast. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio, which according to some sources was the origin of the phrase "back to square one". - huh? Without reading the article, this makes little sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rest of article

• Sourcing looks good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Could we get a quick overview of the event before the route to the final (or, just before the Cardiff City bit)? The lede is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm a little confused, do you mean to add more information about the earlier rounds to the lede, or to add a competition overview in the route to the final section? Kosack (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll take a deeper look in after the above is sorted, but I couldn't see much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for taking a look Lee, I've addressed the issues you raised with a few comments. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Lee, just a final check that you had nothing further to add... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, forgot to come back to it. I'll support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Laser brain[edit]

I have only a few minutes this morning so I thought I'd dip into this from the perspective of an American who's relatively unfamiliar with football. I found the lead tough to parse:

• I know that Cardiff is in Wales, but are we prepared to make that assumption of our general readership? If not, the ponderous path is encountering "by a team based outside England" and having to go back, click the "Cardiff City" link which is actually an easter-egg link to Cardiff City F.C. and parse the lead for location... it's a bit messy.

• I've added a mention of Cardiff being from Wales ahead of the outside England sentence. Piping the club link is not really an easter-egg link though, this has been the standard way of displaying football club names on Wiki for a decade and has gone through FAC numerous times in the past. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The second paragraph is difficult to understand. They progressed through five rounds, but entered in the third round? Does that mean they made it to the eighth round? Or that they skipped the first two of a total of five rounds? If it's the latter, I wouldn't really say they "progressed through" those rounds.

• As members of the top division, Cardiff and Arsenal did not enter until the third round. They then won five further rounds to reach the final. I've reworded this to hopefully be clearer now. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley" This is a pretty jarring transition from the previous paragraph.

• Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "each team had opportunities to score" What's considered an opportunity to score in football? I'm familiar with concepts like shots-on-goal in ice hockey or red-zone in American football that are quantifiable but what are we saying here?

  I've removed that if it's too nondescript. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm hope to read the rest tonight but thus far this doesn't strike me as a particularly accessible article to a general audience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Laser Brain, I've made attempts to rectify the issues above. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, I'll go through the rest soon. I'm not too concerned about the quality of writing, but I'll mention anything else I find that comes across as needing more context or explanation. --Laser brain (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few additional comments—I feel this is almost ready:

• "In the fifth round, Cardiff were drawn away against Bolton Wanderers" I presume this means they were considered to be the "away" team for the purpose of the match, but I think this is too much jargon. Similarly, "Arsenal were drawn away in the third round" and so on. Is there something we can wikilink? Or explain the significance?

• I couldn't find any obvious link unfortunately, I've reworded instead to avoid it. Kosack (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You've sometimes written "half time" and "half-time" - Fixed
• "First a header by Brain, then another by Buchan which the goalkeeper could only clear after it had crossed the line." This isn't a complete sentence. - Reworded

Provisional support pending the few last items. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Laser brain: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the comments above. Let me know if you're happy with the changes. Kosack (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks good—happy to support now. Interesting article! --Laser brain (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: I've done some copy-editing, which can be freely reverted if I've messed anything up. It seems nicely done. Just a couple of minor points. Sarastro (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Newspaper reports indicated that Cardiff were the better team, and had it not been for the success of Darlington's defence then they would have won by greater than the two goal margin they achieved": This is cited to one match report, which does say that Cardiff were the better team, but we cannot use one such report to suggest that multiple newspapers said this.

• I've added a Times article that would support the better team part so there is now more than one newspaper report detailing the match. Kosack (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "The English Cup": While this is doubtless true, it is referenced to a story in which quotes the reminiscences of an 86-year-old fan in 2008. I'd like a stronger reference than this.

• Added a second source. Kosack (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've checked several sources, and there are no problems other than the two I mention here. Sarastro (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look, I've responded above. Kosack (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That covers it nicely. Sarastro (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.