Talk:2000 FA Charity Shield/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Problems
1. Lead should say something about this being the last-ever club match at the old Wembley.

2. This was Chelsea's fourth appearance in the Shield to Manchester United's 20th and the second time they had met in the competition. Poor construction with misuse of "to". Change to: ''This was Chelsea's fourth appearance in the Shield and Manchester United's 20th. It was the second time they had met in the competition''.

3. Alex Ferguson was critical of referee Mike Riley's consistency. In the quote attributed to Ferguson in the post-match section, he says nothing about consistency.

4. ...a tackle on the back of Poyet's calf needs to be rewritten as the calf muscle is at the back of the leg. Apparently, Keane tackled Poyet from behind and rammed his studs into Poyet's calf so the statement should summarise that.

5. ...by the league champions of the top division. The league champions are by default the winners of the top division. Just say "by the league champions".

6. Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson said before the match that he felt it was fitting that his team would be one of the teams to play in the final Charity Shield match to be contested at Wembley Stadium and was not undesired to repeat their win over Chelsea in the 1997 game. This does not match content of the stated source. Ferguson did not say it was "fitting" (the BBC said that). Ferguson actually said: "I think it's good for Manchester United to be one of the teams involved in the final Charity Shield at the old Wembley", which is rather different.

7. ...and was not undesired to repeat their win over Chelsea in the 1997 game. Need to rewrite "was not undesired to" which is poor English. Again, Ferguson's actual quote doesn't match the content because he said: "I hope it's a good game against Chelsea".

8. The first sign of tension came after 15 minutes when Roy Keane and Gus Poyet clattered into each other and saw an 11-player brawl. "Saw" does not make sense and the listed source does not specify the number of players involved in the incident or even confirm that a brawl developed. It says: "First sign of tension as Keane and Poyet are involved in a thunderous 50/50 tackle and several players react". There is an element of OR here.

9. Ryan Giggs set up Ole Gunnar Solskjær two minutes later and directed Manchester United's first chance wide. Who directed it?

10. Manchester United began to sustain pressure onto Chelsea within the space of 13 minutes. Needs to be rewritten because "sustain pressure onto" makes no sense and "the space of 13 minutes" needs explanation to put it into some form of context.

11. Zola used confusion. How? What did he do?

12. Penalty box links to the sin bin used in ice hockey. Remove the link or change to penalty area.

13. Scholes' chest shot skimmed to the right of De Goey as Leboeuf pressured him. Presumably Scholes received the ball with his chest and then shot at goal as it came down onto his foot? Using a phrase like "chest shot" doesn't help readers unfamiliar with football terminology.

14. Melchiot then required Barthez to a low dive to the left. Needs to be rewritten as "required" is the wrong word.

15. Keane was the first player to be shown a red card in the Charity Shield since Kevin Keegan was sent off for a tackle on Billy Bremner in the 1974 match between Liverpool and Leeds United. This is factually incorrect. Keegan and Bremner were BOTH sent off for fighting and there was no tackle before or during the incident. The sentence isn't sourced and, given the false information, it is original research and fails GACR #2c.

16. Melchiot... cut the ball... inside the legs of Stam... Does this mean between Stam's legs?

17. Le Saux... immediately set up Hasselbaink, whose subsequent header went wide of the post. Remove "subsequent". That word is used three times in all and is never appropriate or useful.

18.  Quinton Fortune replaced Giggs a minute later, as Scholes received a yellow card for a tackle on Morris after 81 minutes. Scholes being booked had nothing to do with the substitution.

19. Scholes attempted to make up for his yellow card booking before his shot was directed over the Chelsea goal. This is the sort of thing you read in tabloid reports. He was not attempting to make up for his booking; he was trying to score a goal.

20. It was the second time Chelsea had won the Charity Shield and the club took their fifth major victory in that time. The last half of this sentence is completely out of context and makes no sense whatsoever. What were the five victories and what was the timeframe?

21. In the post-match section, some of the quotes are introduced by means of a comma and some by a colon. Syntax needs to be consistent.

22. "In that sense it was a good run-out..." It isn't clear who actually said this. Was it Sheringham or Ferguson?

23. Hasselbaink said he had made an error in the earlier tackle on Keane and would apologise. According to the source, he did apologise so that needs to be said.

24. As a general point, I've noticed a few instances of "would" around the article which should be changed to a more positive term like "will".

25. Need an apostrophe in "officials performances".

26. There is too much use of media terminology in the article so that it reads at times like a tabloid report. That does not help readers who are unfamiliar with football and so it fails GACR #1a on understandable to an appropriately broad audience.

Result
While I have the option to place the review on hold, I have decided to fail it because it is well short of passing GACR #1a and it has failed GACR #2c because of original research. My impression of the article is that it was nominated too soon before anyone had done a through proofread and copyedit. The problems must be resolved first but, if that is done, the article can be re-nominated. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)