Okay, so this one really is a good 'un. Outside of the ultimate classic (I may be biased), this play-off final is stuff of legend. It has been called possibly the most exciting match ever played at the
old Wembley. Three apiece after regulation time, 4–4 after extra time and then penalties. I had the luxury of watching this all unfold in a pub near
Loughborough (nothing better to do with myself at that time), and I remember it almost like it was yesterday. I will work tirelessly to address any constructive comments, and as always, thanks in advance for your time.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The sequence of scoring in the lead could be greatly simplified and in so doing allow a reader who doesn't recognise the names to follow the flow of the scoring. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Well only five different ones, and certainly not excessive to mention Mendonca (for example). The lead in this article can be quite sizeable. I've added a couple shout-outs to club names to help readers follow the flow.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
·Maybe a brief mention of style or tactics. Its the Football League in the 90s so maybe 4-4-2 isn't unusual enough for sources to note, but for instance Peter Reid sides were noted for knocking it long, usually onto the head of Niall Quinn. Related to this, the formation diagram is unsourced.
Oldelpaso (
talk)
11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oldelpaso I've added some season preview comments which
Harrias kindly helped with, and some of the nuggets from Reid's autobio which you helped me with (thanks!) I've struggled on the "style"/"tactics" query, predominantly because although you're bang on about the lump it to Quinn while Phillips sniffed around for scraps, that isn't really covered in any of the contemporary reports. If you have anything pertinent and referencerable then I'd be happy to add it. Also, I'd be a touch reluctant to add that for just one of the two sides, i.e. what was Curbishley's 1998 Charlton team playing like??
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Its a fair point. Curbishley was at Charlton for many years but beyond cliched stuff about being well organised I can't find much about their style in that period. I'd view it as a nice to have, not an essential. Like you say, doing it for one team not the other would be lopsided.
Oldelpaso (
talk)
16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
while the teams placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; - considering it doesn't go anywhere, can we just say that they took part in "a playoff tournament". The fact that they started at the semi-finals isn't that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The clubs won their semi-finals and competed for the final place in the Premier League's 1998–99 season. - this seems a litle bit redundant. We've already mentioned what the winner gets. Perhaps mention who defeated who in the semi-final. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
weak strike - "weak" has a few connotations, is there a better word to describe it for the lede to suggest it's not very powerful? - not a major point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final - probably don't need to use the full name. Could just mention that they won the play-off final in 1987, then known as the Second Division. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
history of the play-offs - perhaps we should define this as "the play-offs in English football", as I'm sure this has happened in other play-offs in other countries/sports Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I think it's clear in the context of this article that mentions of the play-offs relate only to the play-offs of English football. I'm not sure reiterating that for the final sentence of the article is particularly helpful.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"Nationwide League Player of the Year" I understand Nationwide sponsored the FL, but isn't it better/clearer to say "First Division Player of the Year" (or was he Football League POTY)?
Better to link
1996–97 FA Premier League in "a failure to score towards the end of the previous season" than in "first time of asking, having been relegated in the previous season".
"In 2014, the English Football League listed it first" better to drop "English" as the competition was simply known as "Football League" in 2014.
Interesting point. The website this is referenced by has "EFL" logo so that's why I used the phrase. What do you think?
I would still put it as "FL" because the prose of the ref doesn't mention "EFL". It's certainly no biggie to me so it's up to you (of course).
WA8MTWAYC (
talk)
11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"Charlton Athletic faced Ipswich Town in their play-off semi-finals", is there a need to reuse Athletic here? Both the mentions before and after this have dropped it.
"Dr Martens League", sponsored names should be avoided in favour of the competition's official name.
"went over the Charlton's crossbar", either the or Charlton's is wrong here
"In the 23rd Charlton", is minute missing here?
Quinn claimed that despite the loss, his team were the best footballing side in this division", there's an opening quotation mark missing from here somewhere.
"Miles Kent writing for the Bleacher Report in 2008 calling it", the double -ing here doesn't seem to work. Should it be called instead? The same with describing immediately after, should this be described?
Nice work TRM, a good read. The reviews above have ironed out much of any potential issues, a few minor things I noted are listed above.
Kosack (
talk)
13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Ref #51, "Top 100: the complete list" needs the dates tidying. It looks like "27 November 2009" should be the publishing date, and 8 October 2013 should be the archive date.
I do wonder at the lack of inclusion of written histories of the clubs: Ramzan, David C. (2014). Charlton Athletic: A History. Amberley.
ISBN978-1445616575. and Collins, Mick (2002). The Rise & Rise Of Charlton Athletic: From Portakabins To Porto Captains. Mainstream.
ISBN978-1840186956. might be worth a look.
I've bought them both so I can also become a CAFC expert too. One is coming tomorrow, the other second hand from Amazon will take a week or so. Hopefully that won't hold up this source review, you can AGF that I'll include anything of relevance.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Collins, Mick (2003) generates an ISBN error -- not holding up promotion because I have seen instances of false positives with this but perhaps you can check... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay, so this one really is a good 'un. Outside of the ultimate classic (I may be biased), this play-off final is stuff of legend. It has been called possibly the most exciting match ever played at the
old Wembley. Three apiece after regulation time, 4–4 after extra time and then penalties. I had the luxury of watching this all unfold in a pub near
Loughborough (nothing better to do with myself at that time), and I remember it almost like it was yesterday. I will work tirelessly to address any constructive comments, and as always, thanks in advance for your time.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The sequence of scoring in the lead could be greatly simplified and in so doing allow a reader who doesn't recognise the names to follow the flow of the scoring. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Well only five different ones, and certainly not excessive to mention Mendonca (for example). The lead in this article can be quite sizeable. I've added a couple shout-outs to club names to help readers follow the flow.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
·Maybe a brief mention of style or tactics. Its the Football League in the 90s so maybe 4-4-2 isn't unusual enough for sources to note, but for instance Peter Reid sides were noted for knocking it long, usually onto the head of Niall Quinn. Related to this, the formation diagram is unsourced.
Oldelpaso (
talk)
11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oldelpaso I've added some season preview comments which
Harrias kindly helped with, and some of the nuggets from Reid's autobio which you helped me with (thanks!) I've struggled on the "style"/"tactics" query, predominantly because although you're bang on about the lump it to Quinn while Phillips sniffed around for scraps, that isn't really covered in any of the contemporary reports. If you have anything pertinent and referencerable then I'd be happy to add it. Also, I'd be a touch reluctant to add that for just one of the two sides, i.e. what was Curbishley's 1998 Charlton team playing like??
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Its a fair point. Curbishley was at Charlton for many years but beyond cliched stuff about being well organised I can't find much about their style in that period. I'd view it as a nice to have, not an essential. Like you say, doing it for one team not the other would be lopsided.
Oldelpaso (
talk)
16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
while the teams placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; - considering it doesn't go anywhere, can we just say that they took part in "a playoff tournament". The fact that they started at the semi-finals isn't that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The clubs won their semi-finals and competed for the final place in the Premier League's 1998–99 season. - this seems a litle bit redundant. We've already mentioned what the winner gets. Perhaps mention who defeated who in the semi-final. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
weak strike - "weak" has a few connotations, is there a better word to describe it for the lede to suggest it's not very powerful? - not a major point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final - probably don't need to use the full name. Could just mention that they won the play-off final in 1987, then known as the Second Division. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
history of the play-offs - perhaps we should define this as "the play-offs in English football", as I'm sure this has happened in other play-offs in other countries/sports Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I think it's clear in the context of this article that mentions of the play-offs relate only to the play-offs of English football. I'm not sure reiterating that for the final sentence of the article is particularly helpful.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"Nationwide League Player of the Year" I understand Nationwide sponsored the FL, but isn't it better/clearer to say "First Division Player of the Year" (or was he Football League POTY)?
Better to link
1996–97 FA Premier League in "a failure to score towards the end of the previous season" than in "first time of asking, having been relegated in the previous season".
"In 2014, the English Football League listed it first" better to drop "English" as the competition was simply known as "Football League" in 2014.
Interesting point. The website this is referenced by has "EFL" logo so that's why I used the phrase. What do you think?
I would still put it as "FL" because the prose of the ref doesn't mention "EFL". It's certainly no biggie to me so it's up to you (of course).
WA8MTWAYC (
talk)
11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"Charlton Athletic faced Ipswich Town in their play-off semi-finals", is there a need to reuse Athletic here? Both the mentions before and after this have dropped it.
"Dr Martens League", sponsored names should be avoided in favour of the competition's official name.
"went over the Charlton's crossbar", either the or Charlton's is wrong here
"In the 23rd Charlton", is minute missing here?
Quinn claimed that despite the loss, his team were the best footballing side in this division", there's an opening quotation mark missing from here somewhere.
"Miles Kent writing for the Bleacher Report in 2008 calling it", the double -ing here doesn't seem to work. Should it be called instead? The same with describing immediately after, should this be described?
Nice work TRM, a good read. The reviews above have ironed out much of any potential issues, a few minor things I noted are listed above.
Kosack (
talk)
13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Ref #51, "Top 100: the complete list" needs the dates tidying. It looks like "27 November 2009" should be the publishing date, and 8 October 2013 should be the archive date.
I do wonder at the lack of inclusion of written histories of the clubs: Ramzan, David C. (2014). Charlton Athletic: A History. Amberley.
ISBN978-1445616575. and Collins, Mick (2002). The Rise & Rise Of Charlton Athletic: From Portakabins To Porto Captains. Mainstream.
ISBN978-1840186956. might be worth a look.
I've bought them both so I can also become a CAFC expert too. One is coming tomorrow, the other second hand from Amazon will take a week or so. Hopefully that won't hold up this source review, you can AGF that I'll include anything of relevance.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Collins, Mick (2003) generates an ISBN error -- not holding up promotion because I have seen instances of false positives with this but perhaps you can check... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply