Talk:2019 FA Cup final

2019 FA Cup final is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2024.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 30, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
April 10, 2021	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 18, 2019.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Watford's appearance in today's FA Cup Final is their first since 1984?

Current status: Featured article

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.

London Low‑importance

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

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

Kits used

Manchester City played with white socks.--87.10.100.152 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 FA Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Hello, The Rambling Man. I'll be doing this review and will use the checklist above to register progress. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as a lifelong Bury fan, I like the image on your page. Could be us, ha! :-)

Thank you! I was devastated to see what happened to your club. Fingers crossed for a quick return and a rapid rise back up to where you belong. And thanks for taking on the review. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of you to say so and thanks. I've made a start but I need to be elsewhere. I've checked the images and they are fine. Back later. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm not sure removing my double spacing is a good use of your time, but never mind. See you soon. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, that was me thinking they were errors and didn't realise how many were affected. I've restored them. Will have to go again but I think I should be able to finish this one later today. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I've completed minor amendments as I've seen them to save time here and I think the article is now very close to meeting the criteria. I have four questions affecting structure and coverage (see above) that will need your attention:

Manchester City were still without long-term injured Benjamin Mendy but both Fernandinho and De Bruyne were available for selection. This sentence needs a citation and an explanation for the availability of Fernandinho (who didn't play) and De Bruyne – had they been injured too and was it long term, or had they been suspended?
Enhanced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the first half and second half sections need splitting into three or perhaps four paragraphs because they are solid blocks of text without breaks that would be daunting to a reader who is unfamiliar with football. I would break at "In the 21st minute" and "In the 26th minute" for first half. Second half, I would suggest breaks at "In the 55th minute", "In the 65th minute" and "In the 81st minute".
Broken. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mentioning that Kompany went into player-management at Anderlecht?
Noted in the text. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
City scored 26 goals during the season's FA Cup campaign, the most by any winning team since the 1925–26 FA Cup. Could you please clarify "winning team" as I'm sure City themselves established the most goals record in 1926 but were runners-up to Bolton?
I think I've adjusted it to suit? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you're a frequent user, I'll leave this as is for a day or so without putting it on hold. It's nearly there and I've enjoyed reading it. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker cheers, I've addressed the above. Let me know if I've missed anything. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and well done because I'm happy to pass this now. Slight misunderstanding on my part about the competition goals record because you mean the most by a Cup-winning team. By coincidence, it was City who scored a then-record (not sure if it's been beaten) 31 goals in the 1925–26 competition but they didn't win the Cup that season. For what it's worth, I think Vincent Kompany's retirement is a massive loss for City that's been evident this season whenever things have gone wrong, though they're still the only team that can challenge Liverpool. Anyway, well done again and I'll do the necessary to list this at GA. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hat-trick

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Raheem Sterling's hat-trick in the article. --Jameboy (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he didn't score one? I don't know how an old revision of the page is proving anything as we all know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameboy: He never actually scored one because one of "his" goals was credited to someone else post-game. See this article for an explanation. Clear friend a ^💬 18:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But should we consider the confusion over the awarding (or not) of the hat-trick to be worth mentioning, especially given the rarity of an FA Cup final hat-trick? Obviously the hat-trick itself isn't notable as there was no hat-trick. --Jameboy (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]