Wikipedia:Peer review/1998 FA Charity Shield/archive1

1998 FA Charity Shield

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The 1998 FA Charity Shield was played between Arsenal and Manchester United, two of English football's well-documented clubs. I'd like to nominate this article at FAC, hence why I've listed it for a peer review. Any sort of comment would be welcome, particularly to check if the summary reads 'encyclopedic'. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments –

"The match saw United captain Roy Keane start his first competitive game, since damaging his cruciate ligaments 18 months ago and defender Japp Stam making his competitive debut for the club." First, the comma should probably be removed, and second, "making" should be "make" so that the tenses of that and "start" match.
Minor, but the space before the reference in the match detail table could stand to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Giants2008, have made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shudde:

" the winners of the previous season's Premier League and FA Cup competitions" -- can probably cut "competitions" is clear from context that's what these are.
"It was contested by Arsenal, who won a league and FA Cup double the previous season, and Manchester United, who finished runners-up in the league on 9 August 1998" -- at the moment this reads like Man U finished runners up on 9 August, rather than that the Charity Shield was played on that date. How about -- "It was contested on 9 August 1998 between Arsenal – who won the League and FA Cup the previous season – and Manchester United – who had finished runners-up in the league." Or something like that.
"between the top professional and amateur teams of each season" -- "of the season"?
"initially contested between the top professional and amateur teams of each season" -- this isn't supported by the reference. Rather it seems to have been between the Southern and Football League winners.
"Wembley Stadium acted as the host of the Shield." -- this needs a little expansion/clarification. Have they always, or only in 1998?
"with the first game in midweek" -- English
"He nevertheless relished the match" -- this is not very encyclopaedic -- cut it or find a quote
"whose attempt forced David Seaman to clear" -- might want to clarify that Seaman was the Arsenal keeper, just makes that whole sequence a little clearer
"ball first time past Schmeichel" same here. Without this it's not even clear a goal was scored.
"showed that Arsenal had what it takes" -- "had what it took"

Generally the prose seems pretty good, but I'm not the best person to give feedback on that. An overall concern I have with the article is that is does not really give a clear historical view on why the match was important -- or what lasting notability it had? Nearly all of the references are from 1998/1999, but it's been over 15 years since the match -- do people ever write about/talk about it now, or is it just forgotten? So outside of the context as a bit of a warm up for the 1998-99 season, the article doesn't make clear how important this match was. -- Shudde ^talk 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Shudde. Charity Shield matches don't tend to be memorable; the press consider it as a 'glorified friendly' and managers treat it like a warm-up to the league season. This wasn't a notable affair, there's next to nothing written about the game today, and it had little bearing on United or Arsenal's season. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro:

"The match saw United captain Roy Keane": I never like this construction, as the match can't see anything, and it is sports-speak.
"Manchester United began the game the better of the two, but conceded 11 minutes before half time through Marc Overmars": The first part of the sentence is clumsy (Maybe "began the game more effectively"?) and I can't see the second part making much sense to non-footballers. What about "but Arsenal took the lead when Marc Overmars scored 11 minutes before half time"? And should half time be hyphenated?
"good play from Overmars and Anelka found Christopher Wreh to put the ball into an empty net at the second time of asking.": This is sports speak again, and who says it was good play? POV?
"when Anelka evaded Stam in the penalty box to shoot past goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel.": And more sports speak.
"Arsenal's win marked the first time a southern club had won the Shield outright in 36 years.": And I can see this being meaningless to the general reader, or to anyone outside the UK.
"Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger described the scoreline as "unexpected" and felt the result was a psychological boost for the coming season, whereas Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson admitted his team were beaten by the better side on the day.": This is crying out for a comment on how the season transpired for both teams, and I'm not sure that "whereas" is justified here.
"a winning streak of nine matches ensured Arsenal won the title, culminating with a 4–0 win over Everton on 3 May 1998.": How can they win the title culminating in a win? Should this be "a winning streak of nine matches, culminating in a 4–0 win over Everton on 3 May 1998, ensured Arsenal won the title."
"He felt the contest with Arsenal would get his "players' sharpness up and provide plenty of benefit" for their upcoming matches.": Something wrong with the punctuation here.
"Dennis Bergkamp partnered Nicolas Anelka upfront.": Sportspeak?
"Manchester United began brightly": Hardly encyclopaedic.
"with their midfield coping well against Arsenal's pair Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit": Try to avoid the construction "with [noun] [verb]ing"
"having partaked in France's successful World Cup campaign.": Should be partaken, but not sure this is the best word anyway. Why not just "taken part"?
"Vieira chipped the ball over the United defence, which met Bergkamp": Did the ball or the defence meet him?
"A shot by Keane from "25 yards" prompted a save from Seaman, three minutes before the break.": Why does this need quotation marks?
The whole summary section reads uncomfortably like a newspaper report, and the use of quotations for short phrases is a little jarring.

Generally, the article is serviceable, but as you say above, the game was not a big deal at the time or later. The competition is one of the more pointless ones, and that even comes across from the comments made at the time and reported in the article. Through no fault of the writer, this atmosphere of "so what?" permeates the article, and makes it a slightly dreary read. And I'm not too sure there is much that could be done about that. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look at the article Sarastro. I've made adjustments, in particular removed quotations from the summary and some short quotes in the post-match section. It was an dull game, but I do think this is worth a shot at FAC because I do feel there's nothing more to add in terms of coverage -- it's just prose that lets it down. I'll try to pick a more interesting topic for you and others to review next time. :) Lemonade51 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]