Talk:2004 Football League First Division play-off final

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

2004 Football League First Division play-off final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 5, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
May 23, 2021	Good topic candidate	Promoted
January 22, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

Sources

Semis

Palace v Sunderland Done
Sunderland v Palace Done
Ips v WH Done
WH v Ips Done

Pre

Pardew relish

Match

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2004 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'll take this on to review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020 Mujinga (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest declaration: I'm a Notts Forest supporter from the 1990s and that doesn't bear much on this case.

Template

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Lead

First sentnece: "which was" isn't really needed?
It reads fine to me, and has been generally acceptable for a couple of dozen other GAs and four FAs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"more than 72,000" since everywhere else it's 72,523 may as well say that here as well?
Sure, I like the lead to be a wordy summary which means not necessarily getting down to individual digit accuracy, but it's no biggie. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route

"West Ham finished twelve points behind West Bromwich Albion (who were promoted in second place) and twenty behind league winners Norwich City" I'm not sure if this sentence is necessary since we don't have the equivalent for Palace
No, Palace's position is mentioned in that very sentence, so it covers all the bases. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Their qualification for the play-offs was secured in injury time of the final game of the season when West Ham's Brian Deane equalised against Wigan Athletic" - Brian Deane not so necessary to mention by name, the important thing is it was West Ham, and the source says it was ironic so you could add that
I don't see a problem with the name-check, and I'm not sure Wikipedia should be using terms like "ironic", we'll stick with the facts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Both therefore missed out on the two automatic places for promotion to the Premier League and instead took part in the play-offs" - this isn't mentioned in the source
It's in the source, the colour coding shows automatic promotion places and playoff places. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes took me a while but i see now Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson can be linked on first mention
Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"allowing Christian Dailly's shot to be deflected into the Ipswich goal" - i feel allowing is a strange choice of word here, since a deflection is accidental. can you rephrase?
Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"their most recent" - their previously most recent?
No, it's written in the context of the timeframe of the "Background" to the game in question so that's not necessary. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"up to £30 million" well the BBC link says 30. the ESPN link is not needed, or you could keep it and say 25-30 milion. this also applies to the lead
Well 25 to 30 million could be rephrased as "up to 30 million" really. It's not a precise science. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

"in front of a Millennium Stadium crowd of 72,523 spectators" could add "in Cardiff" here
That would be awkward. Instead I've added a sentence noting that it was the fourth playoff final at the Millennium Stadium, in Cardiff. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carrick and Zamora can be linked on first mention, cor it's like a Russian novel!
Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Details

That's a lot of yellow cards, worth mentioning/referencing in text?
Unfortunately, the sources don't have any mention of how they were acquired, simply when they happened, so all the detail I have is already there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cool thanks for explanation Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Match rules - is this needed? I don't see it in 2005 Football League Championship play-off Final
Blown away. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match

On the direct quotes I don't have access right now to British Newspaper Archive, I want to check them
You'd need to subscribe then. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have institutional access but I can't make it work, nevermind. I was able to find the "Shipperley strike sees Eagles soar to Premiership" article online and the quote is good, happy to AGF on the others.Mujinga (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on the legacy of this match beyond what the managers said, in terms of broadness of coverage? (Asking from a position of ignorance)
Nothing in particular beyond how the clubs got on the following season. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment - any chance of adding a pic of the goal scorer or other important figures?
No image of Shipperley is available, added one of the ref. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and a fine foto it is! Mujinga (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this on hold to give time for these quite minor comments to be addressed, not expecting any problems Mujinga (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga I've addressed and/or responded to all your comments, cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, I am satisfied this meets the good article criteria now. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]