Talk:2011 Emirates Cup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 06:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

— Looks good generally, although there's a tendency to break into soccer jargon, and while doing so, to editorialize a bit. I've highlighted some instances of both, but I think you should take another look at the "Summary" section to try to remove any other instances.

Lead

"at its home ground, the Emirates Stadium." — I would clarify that this is in London.
"The inclusion of the Red Bulls meant Thierry Henry returned to play against his former club." — his former club was the Red Bulls, or another club? You should clarify which both clubs were.
"It also marked..." — "It" makes it seem as if you're referring just to the inclusion of NY, but the article makes clear you mean Boca as well.
"clubs outside of UEFA's jurisdiction" — perhaps spell out UEFA the first time you use it.

I'd argue against, it's one of the acronyms that doesn't need to be spelled out. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The competition follows a point scoring system" — since you mean the Emirates Cup generally (not just 2011), perhaps say "The Emirates Cup follows..." (or similar).
"For this event Arsenal did not face Paris Saint-Germain, and Boca Juniors did not play against New York Red Bulls." — I would reword so it's a bit more reciprocal, e.g., "For this event Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain did not play each other, nor did Boca Juniors face New York Red Bulls."
Since there are only four teams, I would add who got third and who fourth.

Background

Are the games normally back-to-back, or are they morning/evening?

Back to back. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Argentine club Boca Juniors, French side Paris Saint-Germain and Major League Soccer club New York Red Bulls" — why does the convention change? It goes country/country/league.
"New York Red Bulls' involvement" — how about "The involvement of New York Red Bulls", just to avoid that slightly awkward apostrophe?
"returned to his old club." — do you mean "to face his old club."?

Summary

"in place of Henry who was rested" — suggest a comma after "Henry".
"the forward was top scorer" — should be "the top scorer".
Three of the four semicolons in the article are in the first paragraph of this section. I'd at least eliminate the second, which makes two sentences in a row with them.
"who evaded his marker" — the Sharpie, or the Crayola? A bit jargony.
"placed the ball into the far right side, beating Salvatore Sirigu." — same. "placed the ball into the far right side of the net, past [or beating] goalkeeper Salvatore Sirigu" would work.
"during the second half; Jérémy Ménez almost equalised in the second half" — the second reference to "the second half" could be omitted.
"New York Red Bulls coach Hans Backe was ecstatic" — seems a little bit like editorializing.
"The French side made eleven changes" — meaning 11 new starters? Or a few substitutions, and a few changes of position?

Still unclear.

Eleven new players, all of them were on the bench the previous day. Rewritten. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In the match, Paris Saint-Germain" — you could say instead "In the 8th minute, Paris..."
"free kick late on" — what minute?
"Boca Juniors faced Arsenal the day before" — why treat the matches out of order?

It's a summary, so order doesn't matter too much. Plus it got repetitive sticking to an order when rewriting the other articles.

I'd think that consistency with other articles would be preferred, but not going to pin the review on it. Just something to consider.

It's very unclear when the goals in the Boca-Arsenal match were scored.
"into the line up." — should be "lineup."
"but their carelessness in front of goal was punished" — feels like a sportswriter writing here.
"Arsenal were booed" — or "was booed" (the team, singular, was booed)?

Changed back to Arsenal were booed (the first change was incorrect). Honestly not sure whether a team is treated as singular as plural, so went with "were" to be consistent.

"something Wenger understood '...but I don’t think we need to put any extra pressure on us now.'" — first, only Wenger knows if he understood it or not; all we know is that he said he understood it. Second, the quotation needs to be introduced (and you don't need the ellipsis), e.g., "something Wenger said he understood, before stating that 'I don't...'".
"He revealed he wanted Henry to play the last five minutes of the match for Arsenal which was denied by the referee" — is this something that would be at all within the bounds of reason for exhibition match protocol?

Not entirely sure on this. It's a friendly, so the referee could have allowed the switch up to happen, but can't find a source to confirm this. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standings

The explanatory sentence should be in the past tense, since it's clearly referring to the 2011 system.
What's the source used?

General source below.

Matches

Why do bars separate only the first and the last matches?
What's the source used?

General source below.

Goalscorers

Perhaps add a note that one goal was an own goal, to explain why there are only 9 goals recorded here, yet 10 scored in the tournament.

b (MoS):

— Logical quotation is generally preferred (as far as I can tell), so the period after "and with his head" should go outside of the quotation mark.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

— appears factually accurate, but "Standings" and "Matches" don't have sources for the stats. Also, the distinction between "general" and "specific" sources is confusing, and I don't think necessary. Since it seems that the "general" source is where the stats come from, I would merge it with "specific", and just cite it as your source for the "Marches" and "Standings" sections.

Added sources for matches and standings. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

b (citations to reliable sources):

— sources appear reliable.

c (OR):

This line feels like personal analysis of the source: "The post-match reaction in The Telegraph shifted the attention from the game to the futures of certain Arsenal players, particularly Cesc Fàbregas and Samir Nasri."

Rewritten. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

— minor issue with "to play the last five minutes", which is copied but not quoted. Also, the explanatory line in "Standings" is a pure copy/paste. I'd rephrase the first slightly, and the second one more significantly (it also has tense issues, as noted above).

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

— covers the major aspects.

b (focused):

— article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy — Article is generally neutral. The one thing I wonder about is why the two NY games have their own paragraph, and the other two games are placed within one paragraph? I would have expected four paragraphs, taking the four games in order.

Mixture of there not being lot of notable action going in the other fixtures, finding it difficult to stretch material and I didn't want WP:WEIGHT/lopsided issues. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. It is stable — article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

— Nice images of the players. What about a lead photograph (perhaps of the stadium or the pitch)?

Added one now. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

— captioned, but can you add some alt text?

Added Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

— Lemonade51, Looks good overall, and I don't think there's anything that should be particularly difficult to address. Many of the prose points are just suggestions, with which you should feel free to disagree. The main thing there is the jargon/editorializing. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Usernameunique: for your thorough review, think I've addressed all your concerns. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, Lemonade51. Made a few comments above (the only one that really matters is about the 11 changes), and a few edits to the article. Prose looks in good shape. Could you just address or respond to the non-prose points above? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Think I've got them all now. Thanks again. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51, looks great. Made a couple edits, and added a caption to the lead image. Can you give it some alt text as well? Not going to hold up the review over it, however, so I'll go ahead and pass this. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]