Talk:2018 FA Cup final

Tactical line up file and color of GK's

See this video.--95.247.111.129 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I was going by the BBC's broadcast for the formations, but I'll change the colours of the GK shirts. Looks like they used the wrong ones in the BBC graphics. – PeeJay 19:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more important tactical line up of graphics of the tv with official broadcast of FA Cup as show the video of my link.--95.247.111.129 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think your broadcast was official? – PeeJay 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing. I think this. I see the match accross my tv on Sky Sport. So I think the official broadcast line up it's to follow for the file image.--95.247.111.129 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well I saw the match on the BBC here in the UK, where the match was played, so I'm inclined to go with their assessment than whatever you saw. – PeeJay 20:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok.--95.247.111.129 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 FA Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Ref #2 lists BBC Sport as a work/website, rather than a published as the majority do. It also doesn't link it.
• Ref #28 should be marked as subscription access.
• Ref #29 is formatted differently to the other Football Association sources. Same for ref #35. (But not ref #39, that is free to access for all. No idea why.)
• Note #a could do with a reference.
• With the small exceptions listed above, the references are all formatted consistently, appropriately formatted, and are to reliable sources.

All addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Images

• Let's get rid of the programme cover, per the discussions about most of these: it doesn't seem a justifiable non-free use rationale, though the argument is probably better for this one than many others, given it is a picture of the trophy.
• The other images are all appropriately licensed and captioned with alt text.

Addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• "The match went into extra time, during which both Pedro and Álvaro Morata dismissed, each for two yellow cards." Missing "were" in front of "dismissed". It could also do with clarifying which team they played for: one from each team, both from Chelsea, both from Norwich?
• "..when he wasn brought.." Typo.
• "..with two goals from Batshuayi and a one from Marcos Alonso." Stray "a".
• "..and into the FA Cup Final for the second successive season." Feels like this is missing a word between "and" and "into".
• "United dominated the game won 2–0 with late goals.." Again, feels like it is missing a word (or more), between "game" and "won".
• "..which ended in a 4–0 for United.." And again.
• "..a late goal from the United defender Nemanja Matić secured his side 2–0 victory.." Two many full-stops at the end. Matić normally plays as a midfielder, and based on the line-ups, it looks like that is how he was used in this match too?
• "..in the 1983 final for United and scoring in the drawn first match.." I was confused by "and scoring in the drawn first match", it might be easier to remove it.
• Link Assistant referee (association football), Fourth official and Fifth official (the latter two are actually redirects to the first, but I think it is better to link them all, they are all plausible things for readers to want to know more about.)
• "..that his future would with the club.." Too many words.
• Fabregas needs to be Fàbregas every time. (Five occasions in the first half section.)
• Matic needs to be Matić every time. (Once in each half.)
• "From the set piece, Young's cross was cleared by Gary Cahill but a mistake from Phil Jones allowed Sánchez an opportunity: his shot was saved by the outstretched leg of De Gea." I know that this is what the source says, but unless Sánchez had gone rogue, it is clearly wrong: Jones, Sánchez and De Gea all play for the same team.
• "..who saw the first yellow card of the game." "received" might work better than "saw".
• "It was the first penalty scored out a shootout.." Missing a word.
• Wikilink "wall" to a suitable article.
• "Neil Swarbrick ([Lancashire)" Stray square bracket.
• "..declared that "this was a dreadful final." Firstly, it definitely was. Secondly, the quote is missing a closing quotation mark.
• Worth adding that Chelsea returned to the final in 2020, their third in four seasons?

That's it for a first pass. Will stick this on hold. Harrias ^talk 15:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Harrias cheers, all addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to pass this now. Any chance you could pop back and have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Alfredo Di Stéfano/archive1? Harrias ^talk 12:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Petition to bring back match programme

Compared to most other smaller matches, the FA Cup Final is one of the more important ones, and several other FA Cup Finals which are good articles also have the match programme. In the GA Review, the reviewer mentions a discussion on non-free match programmes, however, that discussion was on random league and cup matches, not cup finals. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the match is a random league game or a cup final, unless the design of the programme is mentioned specifically or it could be argued that the programme is the primary visual representation of the match, we can't justifiably claim Fair Use for including an image of the programme in the article. When it comes to Champions League finals where a visual identity is properly established for each one, we might be able to get away with it, but that's not the case for the FA Cup final. – PeeJay 14:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite so. The significance or otherwise of the article is irrelevant to the correct application of fair use. The use of programme images doesn't enhance the readers understanding of the subject in any sense. Thus it clearly fails FUC8 which states Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Ask yourself, does omitting the programme front cover make it more difficult for our readers to understand the article? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Convert templates

Are these really needed? Although not all readers will be familiar with how far a yard is, those distances are usually just estimates, while a conversion template implies that the distance was properly measured. Maybe instead of saying "from 25 yards", we should say "just outside the penalty area" or something like that? – PeeJay 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with the use of convert templates here. I think "25 yards" is much clearer for our readers than "just outside the penalty area" as it's known in absolute terms. We could add "around" in front of "25 yards" if the precise measurement issue is deemed too problematic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me enough to change it, I just wanted to sound off about something I noticed. – PeeJay 11:11, 5 October 2020 (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 18:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)