Talk:United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup)

United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup) 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
April 18, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 29, 2011, June 29, 2014, June 29, 2018, and June 29, 2020.

Football: American & Canadian / England Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

It is requested that an image or photograph of United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

no comment about the fact that when the 1-0 scoreline was telegraphed back to england, the newspapers thought it was a misprint and reported the score as 10-1 to england? is this true? Saccerzd 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

match report link

The match report link appears to be dead. 143.239.7.1 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which URL are you referring to? The FIFA one (linked as "Report" under the scoreline) works just fine for me. howcheng {chat} 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

Surely we can do better than this. It doesn't give the sport, the tournament, anything. Please rename. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard naming format. See Category:England national football team matches for example. howcheng {chat} 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to a later event?

How can this 1950 event be called "Miracle on Grass" in reference to a 1980 event? -- DevSolar (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It picked up that nickname sometime after 1980. —howcheng {chat} 19:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:England v United States (1950 FIFA World Cup)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments inline. —howcheng {chat} 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. I've done a couple of similar style articles and taken one to GA before (although they were cup finals), so I'll give it a read through now and list points below as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the WikiProject's Match Manual of Style is a proposal, and also is tailored to cup finals, there's a few things that the article should follow in order to at least roughly follow it. These are:
- Background renamed to Pre-match.

Done

- There needs to be a section created simply called "Match", with First half and Second half inserted under it as the first two subsections, and Details renamed to Match details, and inserted as the third subsection.

Done

I would merge Remaining matches into Aftermath.
- Aftermath needs to be renamed to "Post-match" and moved to after the Match section. So in order, it should be Pre-match, Match (First half, Second half, Match details), Post-match, Footnotes etc.

Done, but I disagree with merging "Remaining matches" and "Aftermath". "Remaining matches" deals with other events at the World Cup, where as "Aftermath" discusses events that take place outside the World Cup. Keeping them separate seems to make more sense to me.

Sticking them both down as subsections is an acceptable compromise - however, I'd say to move the John Souza line to Aftermath. Miyagawa (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations section needs to go, or have the quotes be merged into post-match with some prose to go with them. The MOS frowns on quote only sections: see bullet #5 of WP:LONGQUOTE.

Done

Every paragraph needs to have at least in-line citations at the end of the paragraph, and there are a number of uncited paragraphs at the moment. These include the first paragraph of Background, the first two of First half, the second paragraph of Second half (although also looking at Second half now, all three paragraphs would probably be better if they were merged into a single paragraph.

I'll have to get Douglas' book from the library again this weekend to get citations for the match details. —howcheng {chat} 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining matches is uncited except for the last line. Again, this could use some re-jigging - I think that the first three paragraphs should be merged together.

Done

First and last lines of Aftermath are also uncited.

Done

Once you've had a chance to look at all that, leave a note here and I'll do a sweep for the prose. I've got access to a couple of British newspaper archives and I'll do a check for them now to see if there's anything to add. Also to note, that any images related to this match would completely meet the requirements of the Fair Use policy and so would be able to be added to the article under that. Miyagawa (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few problems with the references. Firstly, where a general reference has been used it has to be under either a references or notes section header, and not a further reading heading. There's a few different ways of doing this, and you're welcome to use any you like, but what I like to do is to stick both under the references section header, and then ;General and ;Specific to split the general reference up from the numbered references - it'll give headers without adding a section header. However as I said there are several methods, and you're welcome to use any of them. Further issues are:

Can you check reference #2, as I can't seem to get it to load.

Done: web.archive.org

Any news based reference sources and any websites with a hard copy alternative should be in italics, so The Independent and Wall Street Journal need to be italics.

Done

Ref #19 needs to be BBC Online to match the other citations.

Done

2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa shouldn't be in italics.

I can't do anything about that ... the {{cite web}} template does it.

That's alright, I fixed it - the citeweb template removes the italics from an entry if you put the code in for italics. I know, it's bizarre, but it works! :) Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #10 doesn't have the original website listed, so US Soccer Players needs to be added.

Done

All the BBC references need to have the publishing dates added.

Done

Ref #21 has a different date format for it's publishing date, as does #20 and #10 for their retrieval dates, and #13. There's a couple of other examples, but basically all the references need to have a matching date format - considering that it's an article about the USA versus England, I think that pretty much allows you to go with whatever format you like!

Done: all date formats made consistent

Ref #14 could do with a retrieval date in order to match the other references.

Done, sort of. Had to go to the wayback machine for this one too. —howcheng {chat} 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting there, after those reference formatting issues have been resolved, I'll get around to that prose - and get around to checking the Times archive (because I would love to find a British 10-1 headline for you). Miyagawa (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, prose time (and sorry for the delay!):

Lead: Apart from the first sentence, all of the lead needs to be duplicated in the aftermath as the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. As such the lead also needs to give a brief summary of the other sections.

Pre-match: Link first instance of World Cup.
Is there a specific citation for "Kings of Football"?
You might want to add a direct citation after saying that Stanley Matthews was one of the best players in the world - otherwise I think that someone will come in afterwards and stick a needs citation tag in there.
Also needs a cite for Matthews watching the game with the reserves.
Last line of Remaining Matches needs a citation.
I would merge the last two paragraphs of Aftermath together.

I can't see any specific phrasing issues, so we should be all good there. Miyagawa (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are all done now. In addition, I expanded the Aftermath section a bit. I also plan to move the article to United States 1–0 England (1950 FIFA World Cup), following the naming convention I proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. —howcheng {chat} 09:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're almost there - once "England had no more chances on goal and the game ended in victory for the U.S. team." has a citation added, this should be good to go for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read that part of the book and it turns out the end of the game was a bit more exciting than I'd originally written. —howcheng {chat} 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once that page needed tag is filled, this can be promoted. Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that piece and I don't have access to that book, so I just deleted it. —howcheng {chat} 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're there, happy to mark this one up as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need to rename GA Review page

When the name of this article is finally set, you'll want to rename the GA1 subpage. Right now, the WP:GAN page can't find the review because the article name no longer matches the GA1 subpage. The review page does show up here, because the transclusion also hasn't been modified, though after the rename there should be a redirect that can handle it if you don't fix the transclusion right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 1950 England v United States FIFA World Cup match AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, as I seem to have missed that discussion altogether. I'm not enamored of that title either as it's rather unwieldy. The other thing I don't like about it is having the word "football" in the title, as football is by itself ambiguous. Imagine a 2000 United States v Canada football match ... which sport would that be? I think this discussion needs to be reopened. —howcheng {chat} 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review page move has now been completed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted paragraph

In order to qualify for Good Article status, we can't have a book reference where the page number is unspecified, so the following paragraph has been removed from the "Second half" section of the match report:

According to the official history of the English Football Association, American newspapermen reported that England scored two legitimate goals—shots that clearly passed beyond the goal line—but were not given as goals.<ref>''England: The Official F.A. History'', Niall Edworthy, Virgin Publishers, 1997, ISBN 1-85227-699-1.{{page needed|date=October 2011}}</ref>

—howcheng {chat} 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform

I am not convinced it is appropriate to talk about England's blue 'uniform'. The term 'uniform' is never used in this context in the UK - it would more likely be described as a kit or strip. Dunarc (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish flag

Why is there a Scottish flag alongside the name of William Jeffrey, the US team manager? He wasn't Scottish. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]