Wikipedia:Peer review/2002 FA Women's Cup Final/archive1

2002 FA Women's Cup Final

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA status and need some pointers.

Thanks, Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks decent to me - thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on sports finals at Category:FA-Class football articles

Yes, I have shamelessly borrowed from 1923 FA Cup Final and 1956 FA Cup Final!

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. As such, nothing should be in the lead only, but the 32nd final and BBC ratings are apparently only in the lead, for example.

Added these points to the background and post match sections, respectively.

• Be careful about language describing a past event. "so far" here sounds as if could be talking about the current team, not the 2002 version Fulham made its second final appearance, after losing the 2001 final. Doncaster Belles entered a 13th final having won the trophy six times so far. Perhaps use "to that time" or something similar instead?

Done. Although sadly they've never won anything since: "so far" would still be accurate!

• Per WP:See also, see also should not be used for red links (it is OK to have red links in the article itself). So I would remove See also: 2001–02 FA Women's Cup

I hadn't realised that. Removed for now and will re-instate if I ever get round to making the article.

• In the Route to the final section, I would give some more background. I would at the very least include something about the records of the two teams in the final that season - how did they do? What were their overall win-loss records?

Fulham's record (that they thrashed everyone they played) is, I think, covered pretty comprehensively in the second para of background. I've added a bit more on Donny's season.

I still think it would help to have one or two sentences for each team that said: a) what their overall win-loss record in the regular season was; b) what place they finished in their league / division (whatever); c) what other post-season appearances they had had. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It might also help to give a few sentences of background on the FA Women's Cup and its history here (beyond the 32nd edition of the final comment in the lead).

Done.

• The language is a bit slang-y and reads more like a newspaper sports page than an encyclopedia article. One example But Carly Hunt tapped in an equaliser, then Tranmere were reduced to ten players when Faye Dunn was sent off. This is doubtless clear to all football fans, but not to those who do not know as much about the game.

A problem which afflicts many football articles. I agree with you and have corrected this example and some other areas where it lurches into sports hack territory.

• Seems very odd that there are no dates of games at all in the Route to the final section

Lifted from the 1923 and 1956 Cup Final route-to-the final sections. Now you mention it, it does seem peculiar. I suppose taking postponements into account there is a danger that the section could become dominated by a mass of dates?

I think the first date in a section / paragraph can be the full date (say April 1, 2002 or even just 1 April). Then the article can have lots of shorthand - three days later, on the fifth, that sort of thing - in the rest of the paragraph. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Link terms on their first use - so National Division appears twice in the article before it is finally linked as FA Women's Premier League National Division

Good spot, fixed.

• Make sure punctuation on quotes follows logical quotation style

I've tried to do this. If you notice a specific example which doesn't adhere, let me know.

• Names of newspapers showuld be in italics. I would also identify the more obscure ones by country at least, so "Norway's Dagbladet reported that Doncaster Belles favoured a typically English style...

Amended, thanks.

• Be careful that language avoids POV issues as well - so industrious and robust may be seen as POV here: The industrious Hunt twins, signed earlier in the season from Charlton Athletic, gave the team a robust edge. Note that such words are fine if they are direct quotes from a relaible source

On consideration these terms were euphemisms (the twins were nicknamed "the rottweilers") - I agree we can probably do without them.

Mentionming "the rottweilers" as a direct quote might give the article a bit of color. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why The Telegraph and not The Daily Telegraph? (italics needed here too)

Done

• MOS says to introduce someone with their full name, then use just their last name from then on, unless there are two people with the same last name or someone known by just one name. Most editors are OK with using the full name on first mention in the lead and again in the body of the article, but five uses of "Carly Hunt" when most should just be "Hunt" do not follow the MOS

Just to distinguish her from Gemma, I take your point but not sure how to get around this really.

I missed the twin - this is OK, but check for others who do not share a last name with anyone else in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I do not understand who won in this sentence Fulham met Doncaster Belles again on the opening day of the 2002–03 season; winning 4–0 on their top–flight debut.[29] Also the semicolon is used incorrectly

Agree is a bit garbled. Re-written that part.

• I owuld say more about this game being live on BBC1 for the first time - sounds like a big deal, but it is not really described in the article.

Added to background.

• Perhaps a WP:FAIR USE image of the match meeting WP:NFCC could be found and used here?

Obviously I've had a good look already and I think we might be struggling. But I've contacted the Belles to see if they have one they'd donate. Fulham are now defunct.

I wonder if a newspaper or sporting magazine from that time would have an image that could be scanned? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why are the "Doncaster Belles" always referred to using their full name, but the Fulham Ladies are almost always just "Fulham"?

Good question. Well it's Doncaster Belles L.F.C. so I guess their full name would be Doncaster Belles Ladies. I just didn't want every second word to be Ladies. If you think it more appropriate, I could shorten it to 'Doncaster', but to my mind 'the Belles' sounds a bit familiar and may come across as POV.

I would use whatever name they are most often called by as the usual name. Still it helps to vary names a bit, and it is probably useful to use the full name of each team somewhere early in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Refs look good to me
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)