Talk:1956 FA Cup final

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1956 FA Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Route to the final section, this sentence ---> "Blackpool took the lead after only 10 seconds (their fastest ever goal), but midway through the match fog enveloped Maine Road", needs a comma after "match".
   Done.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Build-up section, "Abide with Me" needs to be in double quotation marks, per here.
   Done.

   No, "Abide with Me" needs to be in quotations, not italicized. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Would this also apply to the other songs mentioned which are currently in italics? Struway2 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, because songs are to be in double quotations; If you read the header "Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Enclose titles of shorter works in double quotation marks, such as the following" in the Main uses section, it says right there "Songs and singles" belong in the double quotation group. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Done all five. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that one. Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   It would be best if the book sources use {{cite book}} template.
   Unless I'm mistaken, cite book is already used for the first reference to each book. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
   Apart from Matthews Complete Record, which had the cite book at the third mention, and has now been changed to the first, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry about that, I swore I saw the book reference not used correctly, but now I see that it is used. Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 4 cover all this ---> "Though Southend were a Third Division team, their familiarity with the uneven pitch meant the match was closely contested. Southend pressured the Manchester City goal, requiring Trautmann to make several saves, but Joe Hayes scored the only goal of the game on a City counter-attack to earn a fifth round tie at Liverpool"?
   In short, yes. More or less the whole page discusses the match in some depth. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Just making sure and check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Struway2 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What sort of football is the article referring too?

Er... What sort of football is the article referring too?

Other than right at the end there is no mention that the game is soccer and that's in the external links (well I assume it's soccer, I'm not sure).presch (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Football" in the first sentence links to association football, furthermore, it is specified that this was the final of "English football's primary cup competition" and "football" unqualified means association football in England. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the game that's played with a ball and, erm, feet. Occasionally, other bits of body are used, but that's predominantly it. --Dweller (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I must be the only person in the world that didn't know that the FA Cup Final football game was soccer.

Would it be so hard to include the word "soccer" early on in the opening paragraph so the rest of the world outside England would know what the name of the game is? The same applies to the Wiki FA Cup Final page at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/FA_Cup_Final.presch (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "soccer" is used in a minority of countries that play football. It's been the subject of endless argument at Wikipedia and the way it's used here is the compromise. Please note that "soccer" is an abbreviation of "association football" and regarded as an informal (non encyclopedic) usage in most of the world. Sorry, but this is one of those arguments that'll run and run. --Dweller (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the head of Talk:Association_football --Dweller (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

<smacks head> Of course, the most important factor is that this article is in British English. --Dweller (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this!!!

From the last response I have to conclude the game isn't soccer at all it's something else that I've never heard of!

Here is the sequence of events that lead me here: An Wikipedia daily email landed in my inbox on Wednesday titled "1956 FA Cup Final". I'm in Australia, I'm not particularly interested in football of any kind but read the story and thought "I wonder what sort of football it is; is it soccer or rugby or one of the many others I've heard of"? I thought it most likely to be soccer but the the story didn't say, so I clicked on the link in the email to take me to the main Wiki page. I read it through and was none the wiser. I had to do a Google search to confirm that the game was in fact soccer. If it had been simply stated in the first paragraph that the game was soccer (even in brackets) I wouldn't be here tearing out my hair in frustration and wondering why this has become so bloody important. presch (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is written in British English, and the word "football" is the British-English term for the game you call soccer. On first usage it's wikilinked to association football, which is the article for that game and has the word "soccer" in bold type on the first line. (There was a period of some hours when someone changed that link to point to Football in England, which wasn't very helpful, and if you read this article during that period then I can understand your frustration.) Wikipedia guidelines do expect articles to be written in the most appropriate version of English for their topic, and this one was written so that the reader could click on the word "football" and find out immediately what game it referred to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AAAAAAgghhh!!!!

I give in, you can have it! presch (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Full name of competition

Some background: The article originally just said "the FA Cup". When it was peer reviewed before it went to FAC, a reviewer suggested "Not everyone knows what the FA stands for, perhaps spell it out." Had I just spelt it out in situ, as "the Football Association Cup", it would have been inaccurate, because that isn't what the thing's called. So I nicked the wording from 1923 FA Cup Final, which was slightly ahead of this one on its way to FAC, "the Football Association Challenge Cup (more usually known as the FA Cup)", got rid of the brackets and changed "more usually known" to "better known". Which IMO dealt with the reviewer's suggestion while adding a piece of relevant information and without sacrificing accuracy.

If you can suggest clearer wording that doesn't lose the full name of the competition, please do. I've no attachment to that specific arrangement of words. But one person calling it a "waffly aside" isn't a decent argument for removing relevant content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In an article about the competition itself, a discussion of its name may be useful. In an article about one single match in one single edition, it's not relevant and is just a waffly aside. If someone doesn't know what the FA cup is, there is a link to the article. 81.133.23.70 (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. The technical reason for not just putting FA Cup is that the MoS requires spelling out most acronyms on first use, and just spelling out what FA stands for would make the cup name inaccurate, as I said above. As to relevance, the article isn't just about one match. That narrow view could be used to remove all the detail from the route to the final section, perhaps the whole section, any information about the clubs' previous involvement in cup finals, whatever. There's more to an informative article about the final match of a competition than a match report, and the name of the competition isn't even remotely "not relevant". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Man City Kit

The sleeves as illustrated were very wrong, a diagonal stripe is different to stripes at an angle. Removing them looks better honestly.Statto74 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1872 FA Cup Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)