Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FA Cup winners

• 1885-1886, sorting by season puts the replay before the original match and should not do so
  • Fixed
• 1922-1923, attendence is 126,047 (official), does this mean all other attendences are estimates?
  • No, all figures are official, but the official figure for 1923 does not reflect the actual number of spectators present, which may have been anywhere up to 300,000 - see 1923 FA Cup Final for the full story. I'm open to suggestions of a better way to express this......
    • I've now re-done that bit, what do you think.....?
      • (edit conflict) Good I was just suggesting when I got and edit conflict. I would also suggest in the note put that all three of these numbers can be ref'd by "borrowing" the refs from the 1923 FA Cup Final article.
      • Additionally you may want to use ^{[[#fn a|a]]} and then *{{fnb|a}} at the bottom, to make the note linkable.
        • Done
• IMO † should be next to the score not the team, especially considering all the games won on penalties went to extra time, then you can use one symbol instead of two.
  • Changed
• For the italics, it might be worth mentioning when the football league formed (1888) and/or linking "Football League".
  • Done
• In the references works and publishers should be wikilinked where possible. For example
  • Current ref 1 - link The Independent as the work, the publisher would be Independent News & Media
  • In current ref 5, BBC Sport should be linked, and it is the work not the publisher. It would be work=[[BBC Sport]]|publisher=[[BBC]].
  • There are more like these.
    • All done, I think
      • Ref 13 & 16 should be BBC Sport, BBC too.
        • Done
• The reference styles should be consistent. The books listed use a SURNAME, FORNAME style whereas the webpages are displayed as FORNAME SURNAME. In {{cite web}} try using first= and last= instead of author=.
  • All done, I think
• It might be nice to use colours as well as symbols for finals one by extra time or replays.
  • Done

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

• Those two recent refs you added now have that same publisher, work, linking issue as others did previously.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it is looking in good shape. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Olympic captain Albert Warburton proclaimed 'The Cup is very welcome to Lancashire. It'll have a good home and it'll never go back to London.'" Needs a colon after "proclaimed".
  • Done
• Link professionalism.
  • Done
• "The leading professional clubs formed The Football League in 1888,[8] since when only one non-league team has won the cup." Do this mean "since then"?
  • Done
• "In the 1960s Tottenham Hotspur enjoyed a similar spell of success, with three wins in seven seasons." Comma after "1960s".
  • Done
• "Until 1999, a draw in the final would result in the match being replayed at a later date;[13] since that date" "date"-->year.
  • Done
• In the Venues column, all items should be linked because the table is sortable.
  • Done
• Why is the 1874–1875 Cup listed before the 1872–1873 Cup?
  • Where are you seeing that? I sorted the table both backwards and forwards using every column and they appear in the right order regardless.....
    • I don't know :S Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing—In the Venues column, you need to add the "(original)" parenthical note to all the Wembley Stadium ones (unless it was at the new Wembley Stadium, in which case you would put new). You fixed everything else. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, done that :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

• History. Delink 2nd mention of London (in the Warburton quote)
  • Done
• Prefer just "Queens Park reached the final..." to "had reached" (might just be matter of taste)
  • Done
• The 2nd div clubs sentence gets a bit repetitive, perhaps change the 2nd "won the cup" to "were victorious" or whatever
  • Done
• Finals. The competition did take place during the First World War: it ran to completion in 1914–15.
  • Done
• When the table is sorted anything other than chronologically, you can't tell what year the Replay lines apply to. FL criterion 4 says "includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities"; are you sure this is helpful?
  • I only made the table sortable because someone said at the PR that FLs now had to be sortable (and I didn't double check to confirm this). I'll have a think about whether I should take the sorting off......
    • I've changed it now - what do you think? Feel free to tell me if it looks rubbish :-)
      • Well, er...;-) No, it's fine; if people want tables to be sortable, they have to accept they're going to be bright blue and not quite as pretty as they probably would be without the sorting. You'll have to link the seasons (for the same reason the venue is linked every time).
        • All seasons now linked (I'd forgotten about that.....)
• It's disconcerting that adding a symbol to a scoreline pushes the scoreline out of alignment (not sure what could be done about it, but it's still disconcerting)
  • As you say, I'm not sure what can be done about this - something additional to just the colour of the cell has to be used, per accessibility guidelines.....
• The annual FA Cup articles have now been renamed to use the endash separator rather than hyphen, so at some point it'd be good to avoid the redirects (not worth going in specially just for that, though)
  • Might do this if I get bored :-)
• References. Probably picky, but in the BBC references, BBC Sport should be the publisher, and the work (if specified, though I wouldn't) would be BBC Sport website. BBC Sport is a division of the BBC, not a work published by it.
  • Done
• And I'm impressed that you've bothered with the publishers for major newspapers, though there's no need. The documentation of {{Cite news}} says adding the publisher is "Not necessary for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications ..."
  • Another editor said the publisher needed to be added, I'm not fussed either way.....

Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Cheers for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)