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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 17 November 2008 [1].


1956 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Oldelpaso (talk), Struway2 (talk)

Following the related recent FA Bert Trautmann, a nomination for a football (soccer) match of note from the 1950s. Progress on the article has been steady for a few months. It became a GA in September, and since then a significant amount of information from contemporary sources has been added. Most of the significant publications about both the clubs who contested the match have been consulted, and we now feel it is ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have de-capitalised one link title. Please could you point out where Template:Citation is used, as I can't find it. Struway2 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I failed to make myself clear, not for the first time... I can't find where in the article we have used the Template:Citation format, as opposed to the Cite xxx format. Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it using the "edit refs" tool, I have, but it shows up in the edit window on the bottom, where the templates used in the article are listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not guilty, in that case :-) It's transcluded by Cite journal (see [2], about 12th item down), which I have used. Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Botheration! There goes my easiest way to cheat and find that issue... oh well! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support—I've read only the lead. The underlying writing is mostly very good, but it does seem to need a careful copy-edit for polishing. Here are examples.

Quick reply re "equalised": this is normal usage; see Chambers, 2nd definition. Struway2 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Comments

Will try to give this a proper review if I can find the time. BUC (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hopefully this is easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion history of the image, it *was* uploaded by Gary Watson to the English Wikipedia on November 12, 2005. The transfer to Commons by User:Heimdall was done before the Commonshelper tool was available to automatically add history data to NowCommons images. Fixed. GeeJo (t)(c) • 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image still needs a description and, if possible, a date. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a brief description. The stadium was demolished in 2003, so "No later than 2003" is the best I can do with the date. Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Not too much from me this time.

Giants2008 (17-14) 04:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks good. I've made some probably hamfisted edits. Some queries below:

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the Roy Paul one for the City half of the editorship. Also, I've undone your change to "scored eighteen goals while conceding only two". MOS:NUM says that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures", so as it also allows numbers greater than 9 to be "rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words", the word "eighteen" is preferable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ace. I'm content on all your replies. I'll wait until the Paul reply comes in before trying to work out how to hide this stuff. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - An enjoyable article, and ranks among the cleanest articles I've reviewed to date. The other recent FA Cup article that came through FAC was good, but I think this surpasses it, and sets a high standard for similar pages in the future. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's better than mine ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.