179:
The article states where the teams came from (Oxford and
Chatham), that the RE represented a British army regiment, and talks a bit about the players who were (and weren't) selected. I don't have much beyond that. Sources do not record who the favourites were, or the public reaction. In the early
174:
I'm aware this may not be possible, but some brief context for the teams may help here, for example who they were or where they came from. Some contemporary reaction might help to give context as well, such as what was the reaction to the
Wanderers' defeat, or how popular were the games/teams. Which
292:
All other sources list 2,000, including other contemporary newspapers, so I would presume this was correct. The Times' correspondent was probably just taking a guess. The attendance was comparable with the previous two finals. At the time attendances were not usually recorded, so we have nothing
113:"Their opponents, who had spent two weeks training for the match, an innovative concept at the time, were repeatedly thwarted by Charles Nepean, the Oxford goalkeeper and unable to score any goals in reply." Needs a comma after goalkeeper but may be better to use fewer commas in the sentence.
107:"Both finalists had previously reached the final but been defeated by Wanderers, the Engineers in 1872 and Oxford in 1873" seems a little clumsy. It uses "finalists" and "finals" very close together and it could be a little confusing as to who was defeated by whom.
126:"the first time a team had ever scored as many as seven goals in an FA Cup match". Is there a single reference you could use for this instead of three results sections? If not, not a big problem.
248:
The reliability of the info on that site is questionable (for example, they have the score of the 1873 final wrong!) so I have removed it. It is also not considered a reliable source by the
110:"Oxford had defeated two-time former winners Wanderers in the quarter-finals" seems too detailed for the lead unless you add it to the sentence about both finalists being defeated previously.
330:
Again, this may not be possible, but do we know anything about press reaction or public reaction? This section seems a bit brief. Are there any details about what the teams did afterwards?
171:
You give one date (Jan 28) and no others: it may be better to give all the dates or none, particularly as it says "a month later" after the Jan 28 game, which seems imprecise.
186:
An explanation of The Oval being used, compared to
Wembley today, and its main use as a cricket ground may provide context, either for this section or for the match section.
66:
62:
437:
Other than these issues, the article seems fine. If the issues can be fixed and a little more context given to the article, I will pass it. --
47:
39:
202:
Is the reference for teams needing to appeal a goal included in with the reference for no-one knowing why the players didn't appeal?
136:
Would it be better to move the sentence about both teams being beaten finalists to after the sentence where
Wanderers were defeated?
346:
More detail would be good, but obviously only if it exists! Again, I like your expansion and the fact about
Goodwyn fits in well.--
380:
I was following the format of the articles on the previous two finals, both of which are GAs. I'm not fussed either way.
288:
report which is on the same page gives the attendance at 5,000. Do we know which is correct? Was this a good attendance?
218:
No need for that. Maybe if someone was very pedantic, they might want both sentences referenced, but I'm OK with it.--
244:
The link to the match report gives a few details from the match which are not in the article, including context.
488:
458:
55:
17:
241:"Making up for defeat." Is this from a book? It needs clarifying who believed it made up for the defeat.
473:
442:
427:
397:
351:
310:
269:
223:
158:
88:
196:"Military team" may be confusing if someone doesn't know that the Engineers were a military team.
180:
days of football, press coverage was very scarce and only reported the events of the match itself
376:
Rather than "General" and "Specific", it would be better to have
References and a Bibliography.
130:
I have not found a source that specifically states this fact, so using all three links is needed
484:
454:
199:"Unbeknownst" does not seem a suitable word to use in this article: it seems a little archaic.
32:
366:"As was the norm" again seems archaic and should be made plainer. How long was this the case?
249:
392:
My preference is for bibliography, but no problem with this format if it is preferred.--
469:
438:
423:
393:
347:
306:
265:
219:
154:
84:
492:
477:
462:
446:
431:
401:
355:
314:
273:
227:
162:
92:
334:
Nothing on any of the above is recorded. Found a bit more to add in, though
305:
OK, but I like your comparison to previous final as it gives context.--
284:
Attendance: The same link gives the attendance at 2,000 but
252:
project. I have added a bit more in from the book, however.
264:
That's fine. If it's unreliable, best not to list it.--
206:
Yes. Page can be scanned and photobucketed if required
74:
43:
422:
Correction. It is working now, but wasn't earlier.--
123:
The use of the nickname "Sappers" may be confusing.
98:The article seems to meet most of the GA criteria.
139:The scores in previous finals might add detail.
468:Ok, I'm passing the article. Congratulations.--
238:"Sappers" again. It needs explaining, at least.
8:
175:team was the favourite before the game?
7:
453:All done, or comments made above --
24:
417:"Line-ups" seems to be broken.
143:Seems unnecessary detail to me
1:
493:08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
478:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
463:17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
447:00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
432:14:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
402:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
356:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
315:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
274:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
228:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
163:21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
93:00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
514:
293:else to compare against.
83:Hi, I am the reviewer
18:Talk:1874 FA Cup final
118:Route to the final
505:
79:
70:
51:
513:
512:
508:
507:
506:
504:
503:
502:
60:
37:
31:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
511:
509:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
435:
434:
419:
418:
412:External links
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
385:
384:
383:
382:
368:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
339:
338:
337:
336:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
298:
297:
296:
295:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
257:
256:
255:
254:
242:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
211:
210:
209:
208:
200:
197:
188:
187:
184:
183:
182:
172:
168:
167:
166:
165:
153:Fair enough!--
148:
147:
146:
145:
137:
134:
133:
132:
124:
115:
114:
111:
108:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
510:
495:
494:
490:
486:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
381:
378:
377:
375:
374:
373:
372:
365:
364:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
335:
332:
331:
329:
328:
327:
326:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
294:
290:
289:
287:
283:
282:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
253:
251:
246:
245:
243:
240:
237:
236:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
207:
204:
203:
201:
198:
195:
194:
193:
192:
185:
181:
177:
176:
173:
170:
169:
164:
160:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
144:
141:
140:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
119:
112:
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
99:
96:
94:
90:
86:
81:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
485:ChrisTheDude
482:
455:ChrisTheDude
452:
436:
411:
410:
379:
370:
369:
333:
324:
323:
291:
285:
247:
205:
190:
189:
178:
142:
129:
117:
116:
101:
100:
97:
82:
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
44:visual edit
483:Cheers --
371:References
325:Post match
470:Sarastro1
439:Sarastro1
424:Sarastro1
394:Sarastro1
348:Sarastro1
307:Sarastro1
286:The Times
266:Sarastro1
220:Sarastro1
155:Sarastro1
85:Sarastro1
27:GA Review
250:WP:FOOTY
67:history
48:history
34:Article
191:Match
76:Watch
16:<
489:talk
474:talk
459:talk
443:talk
428:talk
398:talk
352:talk
311:talk
270:talk
224:talk
159:talk
102:Lead
89:talk
63:edit
40:edit
491:)
476:)
461:)
445:)
430:)
400:)
354:)
313:)
272:)
226:)
161:)
95:.
91:)
65:|
46:|
42:|
487:(
472:(
457:(
441:(
426:(
396:(
350:(
309:(
268:(
222:(
157:(
87:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.