Jump to content

Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Group B/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Unknown Temptation (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi there, I'm ready for my first GA review (I notice you have done many more!). Thankfully as this event is in living memory, it will not be too hard to evaluate. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Not sure if this is about prose or factuality, but the phrasing "Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, the nation's highest diplomat in Qatar" could be confusing. It suggests Blinken is like an ambassador or consul to Qatar, but I think it's trying to say he was the highest person on the United States presidential line of succession to be at the World Cup? I could not find the words "highest" or "senior" in the text. I think it's just safe enough to say Blinken's office, and anyone wanting more details can follow the link? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead is short but to the point and does not dwell on details. It mentions the closeness between three of the competing teams, and the conflict and controversy involving the fourth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed it as I don't think it's specifically important that no one outranked him. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section): Source 1 [1] is being used for the statements that the draw took place on 1 April and that teams were drawn from pots that were sorted by ranking. I can't see this in the source? However, the details are already in source 14 in the article if you could copy over the reference [2] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 38 [3] I can't find any mention of Peru, 1978, or worst? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  1. b. (citations to reliable sources):
    All sources are reliable. The subject does not include major controversies that would require more authoritative sourcing than journalism. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    c. (OR):
    Not an issue. Match reports are brief and factual and align with what the sources were saying. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The succinct match reports mean that they do not closely resemble the sources. Quotations are brief and to the point. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    Could there be something added early on about manager/player reactions to the draw? We already have what pundits thought of it. Given that three of these countries speak the same language and are entwined in football, there would have been a lot said and it would set the scene of how each country was going into it. But it's OK if you don't want to stuff the page with quotations. There's also something more to be said about the fourth of those teams, Iran. Manager Queiroz supported player protests, then after Iran lost, he called protesters "not welcome". He took issue with the BBC for asking political questions in press conferences, [4], which the Guardian called "extraordinary". I understand if you don't want to swell the page with non-football, but as the lead and earlier sections mention the geopolitical aspect of the group, it's not too farfetched to include it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (focused):
    There is appropriate and succinct detail of qualification before the group. The match reports are enyclopedic rather than full newspaper reports: they mention key details such as the controversial major injury in the England-Iran game or the substitution in the Wales-USA game that the source attributed with changing the direction of the game. These reports would be digestible to fans of a passing interest and would remain understandable years into the future. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a piece on this during the first match. I'm not sure what the coaches/players say about the draw is all that important, unless they say something specific that I've not seen. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Match reports are written in a way that reflects the sources. The non-football elements of this group are mentioned in a factual matter that is not taking sides; all opinions are clearly attributed to relevant figures. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Naturally there were a lot of edits in November and December and dispute between editors on how exactly to sum up six 90-minute episodes in an encylopedic way. The page is stable since then. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Photographs come from an Iranian press agency which licences its images for such use. There are also self-made diagrams. No concerns. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions are fine. Kane image is relevant to the armband discussion. The Wales Iran caption is brief, but that's fine, it's not crying out to have the names of the players. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    All in all this is a great article that gets key information across. It is well-written and does not fall into the swamp of overdetail that affects articles on recent events. I only have the comments I made earlier, some about verification and some about potential further information, which may or may not be relevant to the article in your opinion. Thank you Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Thanks for the review. Full disclosure, I am on holiday at the moment without the best internet access. I shall endeavour to pick up these items, but if you could keep this open until at least a day or two after I get back (I'm back a week on Wednesday), I would appreciate it, in case I need to do a deep dive for any sources. Thank you. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_B/GA1&oldid=1166707715"