Jump to content

Main menu Navigation ●Main page ●Contents ●Current events ●Random article ●About Wikipedia ●Contact us ●Donate Contribute ●Help ●Learn to edit ●Community portal ●Recent changes ●Upload file

●Create account ●Log in ●Create account ● Log in Pages for logged out editors learn more ●Contributions ●Talk

(Top) 1 GA Review 2 Dead link 3 Dead link 2 4 External links modified 5 Australians 6 Move discussion in progress

Talk:1904 FA Cup final

Page contents not supported in other languages. ●Article ●Talk ●Read ●Edit ●Add topic ●View history Tools Actions ●Read ●Edit ●Add topic ●View history General ●What links here ●Related changes ●Upload file ●Special pages ●Permanent link ●Page information ●Get shortened URL ●Download QR code Print/export ●Download as PDF ●Printable version Appearance From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1904 FA Cup final article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Assume good faith

Be polite and avoid personal attacks

Be welcoming to newcomers

Seek dispute resolution if needed

Article policies

Neutral point of view

No original research

Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Football: England / Season Low‑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
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).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1904 FA Cup 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 reassessit.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 25, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that victory in the 1904 FA Cup Final gave Manchester City F.C. their first major honour?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1904 FA Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a(prose): b(MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a(references): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a(major aspects): b(focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

Add a caption to the infobox image if possible.--WillC 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Review
Lead Infobox Besides adding a caption, change "23 April 1904" to "April 23, 1904". It reads and looks better. Also, you may just want to create the template you are using for future reference. Having all that code in there just makes it cluttered.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is the standard way to write a date in British English. See also Wikipedia:DATE#Dates. Okay, good.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Prose "The 1904 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City on 23 April 1904 at Crystal Palace in London." → "The 1904 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City on April 23, 1904 at the Crystal Palace in London."--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "and the tenth at Crystal Palace." → "and the tenth at the Crystal Palace."--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Crystal Palace is the name of a stadium, This would be like putting "and the tenth at the Wembley". Adding "the" makes it read and flow better. In my research to see if "the" is ever used before Crystal Palace, I see quite a few.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That'll be because of The Crystal Palace, the huge Victorian glass building which gave its name to that particular area of south-west London. Indeed using the definite article would make it more likely that readers would confuse the two. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] After reading the lead, I have begun to wonder "is this article notable?". I understand it was the final of a tournament it seems, but none the less it was still just a soccer game. Wouldn't it be better to merge this with something? I don't see how this is notable at the moment. The refs should establish notability yes, but still wondering why?--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world, and one of the most prestigious. The FA Cup Final is to English club football what the Super Bowl is to American football teams. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Okay, good.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Build-up "Bolton reached the final in 1894, but were beaten comfortably by Notts County, losing 4–1 at Goodison Park despite a strong performance by goalkeeper John Sutcliffe." Too much info that is cluttering the point. Change to "Bolton reached the final in 1894, but were beaten 4–1 at Goodison Park by Notts County."--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The intention here is to show that the defeat would have been heavier still, had the goalkeeper not performed so well. "In their passage to the final Manchester City faced opposition from the top division in all but one round, the exception Woolwich Arsenal in the second round." What? Maybe it is just me but I had to read this a few times, before I understood the meaning. I don't know what to change it too, but it is a bit too cluttered and just confusing to me. I guess because I don't follow soccer.--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Split and reworded. "Though Lancashire was a football stronghold in the early years of the professional game, providing a large proportion of Football League teams, the cup final had never been contested between two Lancashire clubs until the 1904 final." Source?--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ref added. "Both teams played 2-3-5, the standard formation of the period." What? I've seen alot of in-universe writing styles. The article is mainly wrote only for soccer fans, and not for everyone. You should explain the information that you would think a non-fan would not understand.--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Explanatory wikilink added. Match Fine--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Match details Delink April 23, 1904, supposed to be against datelinking.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. Is this the agreed upon format? It seems to me could use some changing. A bit sloppy in my eyes.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] In what manner? Some details which may be included in other similar articles would be anachronous here. For example, shirt numbers were not introduced until 1933. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well the layout seems sloppy. A table or something along those lines may make it a bit more organized. That may just be me though.--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reaction Seems fine prose wise, but the second paragraph as more to do with aftermath, than reaction to the match. Making that parts its own section would be good.--WillC 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've renamed the section to "post-match" c.f. the featured 1956 FA Cup Final. Seems preferable to single paragraph sections. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Okay.--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] References 26, 27, and 28 fo not have publishers. Everything seems to be either a book, an article, etc for a seemingly reliable source. I see no problem here.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bibliography Seems fine.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead

- Infobox
  - Besides adding a caption, change "23 April 1904" to "April 23, 1904". It reads and looks better. Also, you may just want to create the template you are using for future reference. Having all that code in there just makes it cluttered.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard way to write a date in British English. See also Wikipedia:DATE#Dates.

Okay, good.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Prose
  - "The 1904 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City on 23 April 1904 at Crystal Palace in London." → "The 1904 FA Cup Final was a football match between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City on April 23, 1904 at the Crystal Palace in London."--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "and the tenth at Crystal Palace." → "and the tenth at the Crystal Palace."--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace is the name of a stadium, This would be like putting "and the tenth at the Wembley".

Adding "the" makes it read and flow better. In my research to see if "the" is ever used before Crystal Palace, I see quite a few.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be because of The Crystal Palace, the huge Victorian glass building which gave its name to that particular area of south-west London. Indeed using the definite article would make it more likely that readers would confuse the two. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - After reading the lead, I have begun to wonder "is this article notable?". I understand it was the final of a tournament it seems, but none the less it was still just a soccer game. Wouldn't it be better to merge this with something? I don't see how this is notable at the moment. The refs should establish notability yes, but still wondering why?--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world, and one of the most prestigious. The FA Cup Final is to English club football what the Super Bowl is to American football teams. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good.--WillC 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Build-up

"Bolton reached the final in 1894, but were beaten comfortably by Notts County, losing 4–1 at Goodison Park despite a strong performance by goalkeeper John Sutcliffe." Too much info that is cluttering the point. Change to "Bolton reached the final in 1894, but were beaten 4–1 at Goodison Park by Notts County."--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intention here is to show that the defeat would have been heavier still, had the goalkeeper not performed so well.

"In their passage to the final Manchester City faced opposition from the top division in all but one round, the exception Woolwich Arsenal in the second round." What? Maybe it is just me but I had to read this a few times, before I understood the meaning. I don't know what to change it too, but it is a bit too cluttered and just confusing to me. I guess because I don't follow soccer.--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split and reworded.

"Though Lancashire was a football stronghold in the early years of the professional game, providing a large proportion of Football League teams, the cup final had never been contested between two Lancashire clubs until the 1904 final." Source?--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added.

"Both teams played 2-3-5, the standard formation of the period." What? I've seen alot of in-universe writing styles. The article is mainly wrote only for soccer fans, and not for everyone. You should explain the information that you would think a non-fan would not understand.--WillC 07:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory wikilink added.

Match

- Fine--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Match details

Delink April 23, 1904, supposed to be against datelinking.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Is this the agreed upon format? It seems to me could use some changing. A bit sloppy in my eyes.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what manner? Some details which may be included in other similar articles would be anachronous here. For example, shirt numbers were not introduced until 1933. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the layout seems sloppy. A table or something along those lines may make it a bit more organized. That may just be me though.--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

Seems fine prose wise, but the second paragraph as more to do with aftermath, than reaction to the match. Making that parts its own section would be good.--WillC 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the section to "post-match" c.f. the featured 1956 FA Cup Final. Seems preferable to single paragraph sections. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--WillC 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

26, 27, and 28 fo not have publishers. Everything seems to be either a book, an article, etc for a seemingly reliable source. I see no problem here.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Seems fine.--WillC 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.sportingchronicle.com/FACUP/1904.html
- In1903–04 FA Cup on 2011-05-25 02:34:09, 404 Not Found
- In1903–04 FA Cup on 2011-06-02 00:43:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://web.archive.org/web/20080521120220/http://www.sportingchronicle.com/FACUP/1904.html
- In1904 FA Cup Final on 2011-05-25 02:34:43, 403 Forbidden
- In1904 FA Cup Final on 2011-06-02 00:43:49, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1904 FA Cup Final. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090720114940/https://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1904.htmltohttp://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1904.html

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) 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australians[edit]

This page says "Also in attendance were cricketers WG Grace, GL Jessop and CB Fry, plus several members of the Australian cricket team" and quotes "The Final Tie: Victory of Manchester City". Manchester Evening News. 25 April 1904. p. 2.

However, no Australian team toured England in 1904. Does anyone have access to the article? 79.71.182.13 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 18:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1904_FA_Cup_final&oldid=1195882411" Categories: ●GA-Class football articles ●Low-importance football articles ●GA-Class football in England articles ●Low-importance football in England articles ●Football in England task force articles ●GA-Class football season articles ●WikiProject Football season articles ●WikiProject Football articles ●GA-Class England-related articles ●Low-importance England-related articles ●WikiProject England pages ●Wikipedia good articles ●Sports and recreation good articles ●Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles ●This page was last edited on 15 January 2024, at 18:35 (UTC). ●Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. ●Privacy policy ●About Wikipedia ●Disclaimers ●Contact Wikipedia ●Code of Conduct ●Developers ●Statistics ●Cookie statement ●Mobile view