Talk:2009 FIFA Confederations Cup final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Having come off the back of reviewing MLS Cup 2001, a few inconsistent formatting issues could be discussed for this "soccer final"-style article. I think it would be helpful to keep such articles in one "style" so here they are:
- "Route to the final" is called "Road to the final" in the MLS article.
- The Venue section came first in the MLS article but comes second here.
- The summary table in the "road/route" to the came after the prose description in the MLS article but comes before in this article.
- No broadcasting section in this article?

There is a separation in styles for international and club final articles, and there's plenty of national-level variations, so I don't think we'll have a style that can be practically applied in the same way for all of them. Having a broadcast section for an international final article would be redundant to the list in the main tournament article, as they are often the same channel; MLS finals, meanwhile, alternate between Fox and ESPN and have different international arrangements.

I still don't understand why the table should come first, at the very least the background section should precede it. And as a summary, it works far better to go after the prose describing its contents. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My other comments relating to the existing content:

" a football match" I would just add "association" to this as it's no harm to be completely precise.
- I don't particularly have a leaning either way, but it looks like other editors have their preferences.
"had taken a " -> "took"
- Fixed.
"win 3–2.[3][4]" I don't think you need references for this specific sentence (no other lead sentences are referenced) as it's clearly referenced in the main body of the article.
- Removed.
"were drawn into Group B" I find this confusing, what happened to Group A?
- Both finalists happened to be from Group B, having defeated teams from Group A in the semifinals. I'm not entirely sure what I can do here to make this clearer, but I'll work on it.
"the Americans " hmm, perhaps picky but aren't Brazilians strictly "Americans" too?
- "American" is commonly understood in English to refer to U.S.-ians more than those in the Americas as a whole.
"United States upset European" "upset" is piped to a redirect.
- Fixed.
"in the semi-finals" the summary table refers to this as the "knockout stage".
- Semi-finals is used in the table.
Just a quick question, no third place playoff between Spain and South Africa?
- Usually the third-place playoff isn't mentioned in the final article, and I can't think of a particularly natural place to slot it in.
Much of the lead is about the tournament and qualification for the final, rather than for the final, the venue, the match, the broadcasting, the attendance etc.
- Added a paragraph to summarize the post-match section, but otherwise I think the lead is fine as it is.
The summary table is confusing in that the results table is given twice. I'm not sure this is ideal for readers (like me who, as I have already said, have watched football all my life) who may already be confused by the "Group B" thing in the lead.
- It's a limitation of both finalists being from the same group, which is inevitable in a tournament the size of the Confederations Cup. I think I can reorder it so that it matches the matchday format of the prose (instead of separate sections for each team as is done in most other finals articles), but that will take a bit of time to tweak.
"The finalists of the 2009 Confederations Cup, the United States and Brazil, had ..." this should come after you've introduced all the competitors in the final (i.e. the "The United States qualified for their ..." paragraph).
- I'm not quite following here. The current sequence introduces the finalists first, then their head-to-head record, and then how they qualified, which I think makes sense for the reader.
"minute off a corner" I think we would normally say "from a corner".
- Fixed.
"The Americans played ..." I would stick to "The United States".
- I'd like to avoid repeating "United States" too much.
"to advance on the second tie-breaker" we would normally just say "to advance on goals scored"
- Emphasizing that this came down to a second tie-breaker is important. I have added goals scored as a footnote.
Did you say anywhere that Spain and South Africa had received byes into the Knockout stage?
- Added their group placements.
" breaking Spain's 35-match unbeaten streak that began in November 2006" you mention this before talking about the game itself. I would summarise the game then mention the record and the fallout.
- I prefer having the result come first, for dramatic effect.
"later chosen for the World Cup opening ceremony" specify 2010 World Cup.
- Fixed.
Any image of the trophy which could be used?
- Trophies are almost always copyrighted and fair use would not apply here.
" 4–2–3–1 formation" could be suitably linked as many readers will not understand this at all.
- Done.
" earned an early lead " took an early lead.
- Fixed.
"Héctor Vergara" is mentioned as "fifth official" in the game summary but not in the prose.
- Added a mention, as he wasn't listed in the press release.
"victories in 2001 and 2003" I think earlier you said the tournament was quadrennial so this probably needs a footnote.
- Added.

That's a reasonably quick trot through, happy to discuss any of these, so I'll put it on hold while we do that. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be out of town for a few days, so I won't be able to get to these comments for a bit. Sounder Bruce 15:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late replies. I'll be going through the article while I can this week, but there seems to be an editor dispute forming here and I'll have to manage to work around that. Sounder Bruce 02:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All done with my comments for now. I have to split time with other projects for a bit, but I can respond during normal waking hours in my time zone. Sounder Bruce 04:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The post-match section could use some pointers to acclaimed players from the finalists, e.g. Howard's golden glove, Brazil's fair play award, Kaka's golden ball etc. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Added a mention of the Golden Shoe and Golden Glove, but I don't think that the Fair Play award was worth trying to cram in. Also moved the tournament table as requested. Sounder Bruce 05:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce I'm content with the responses and various changes made, so I'll promote. Good work. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KingSkyLord

@Sounder Bruce, sorry for almost edit warring with you. I just felt like there were a few issues with the article that I edited in without noticing the GA nomination you placed.

It's alright, but please do read the edit summaries in the history section (where I clearly mentioned the GAN).

Here are some of the few issues (and more) which I tried to edit in, but you undid:

Order of Sections – The Background section should be moved to before the Route to the final section, because qualifying for the competition doesn't directly correlate to reaching the final. You talk about what the competition is, and the finalists' previous encounters from 1992 to 2007; both of which have very little to do with both teams' route to the final. The Background section is more of a "context/transition" section to let people know why they are there in the first place. Plus, other good articles like the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final and the 2015 Copa del Rey Final put the Background section before the Route to the Final section, so I believe it should be placed after the lead, but before Route to the final, especially considering how short it is compared to the Group stage and Semi-finals.
- Having the Background section nested feels more natural, as the blended approach for the Route section is different from other finals articles (and I disagree with their structure, which is forced upon by editors who aren't interested in internationalization). In fact, its shortness is another point in favor of having it nested instead of a separate section, as it would be a bit jarring.
Images of players – Other than the national team jerseys and starting XI's, there's only one picture in the entire article, and that's the picture of the stadium in the infobox. The article should be more illustrated with at least one picture of a Brazil or USMNT player mentioned in Route to the final" or match summary sections.
- I'll look to add images later, but the image of Lucio that was added earlier wasn't particularly good or encyclopedic. It's preferred to have in-game shots.

- Other than that, those are my only two major gripes with the article that I feel should be added/changed. — KingSkyLord (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]