Talk:2011 FA Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam4267 (talk · contribs) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks mostly good but there are a few issues which I will list below.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm going to place the article on hold for now, as there are a number of issues. Most importantly being the lead. However, apart from this there are some other issues most of which I have listed now, plus a number of prose issues which will need to be resolved. I think this article can pass, but it won't if this work isn't done. Adam4267 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am now going to pass this article. I think you have done a great job in getting it up to a high standard and I definitely think it could be a Featured article in the future. I would also like to apologise again for the lengthy delay. Adam4267 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Writing
 * The lead is nowhere near big enough. The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. It really doesn't do that at present.


 * The 2011 final was the ninth in Manchester City's 131-year history and Stoke City's first-ever FA Cup Final in 148 years of existence. Not everything in this sentence is in the main article, specifically the number of finals Man City have played in and how long the club's respective histories are.


 * The lead mentions that the winner plays in the Community Shield, but not that they play in Europe.
 * Not perfectly happy with that sentence in general. I would change it to something along the lines of; The winners would play in the Community Shield against the winers of the PL. They would also be guaranteed a spot in the Europa League (round?) providing they had not already qualififed, in which case the losers would be given the spot. Adam4267 (talk)


 * There is no source, in the lead, for the FA Cup final being the oldest in history.


 * History of Manchester City F.C. is linked twice in the lead.


 * The Lead is A LOT better. However, there are still a few minor issues. Namely POV terms such as, squandered and pounced. The Lead should be neutral. Also Tony Pulis is not wikilinked and Jones' first name (Kenwyne) should be shown. Also the Lead does not cover every aspect pf the article, I will quote again from The lead should ... summarize the body of the article


 * There are still a few POV terms in the lead. Examples are;  resorted to long balls,  wasted their only shot on target,  firing a stray ball. Also the bit (in the last para) where it switches from post-match reaction to what the teams qualify for doesn't really make sense. It's already been established what the outcome of the match was so you can just say; ''As victors Man City gained a place...

*I think there is still a big issue in the lead not adequately covering all sections of the article. Only the football parts of the final are covered, when really it was more than that. Things like Prince William not attending, the match ball, the singer, the ticketing issue, the fixture clash, the post-match parade and the viewing figures could all be in the lead. I'm not saying that I think each of those things should be in the lead because I'm not entirely sure which are the most important. But the ones with the highest weighting in the article and most relevance to the occasion need to be in the lead.


 * The prose is generally ok throughout, but in the Route to the final section there are some issues as well as in a few other areas. I will list these later.


 * Why do we need to know what county/region the officials are from?


 * The table in the route to the final section really is horrible, it's hard to read, takes up too much space and the replays make it even worse because it becomes lopsided. Is it possible for another table to be used, the ones used in European Cup finals are much better in my opinion. Adam4267 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through the article again and cleared up a few minor prose issues. As faras I can see now the only two issues are that Manchester's stadium is given two different names throughout the article, and linked twice the Route to final section. While Stoke's goalscorers v Brighton are not listed. I'm sorry for having such a long delay in finiching this but I think it should be able to pass quite soon. Adam4267 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the double naming of the City of Manchester Stadium as Eastlands and overlinking, and also added Stoke's goalscorers in the 3-0 win over Brighton. Stevo1000 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

References
 * There doesn't appear to be a source for the attendance.


 * There are too many diferent methods being used in the sourcing for my liking, in the first column most have the full name of organisation plus the name in italics. In the second column some of the sources have the full name missing and the common names are not italicised. Either way is acceptable but one needs to be implemented uniformaly across the article.


 * The Press Association (source 26) is the only source where the organisation is wikilinked.


 * What makes Manchester Confidential (source 70) a reliable source?


 * It was a question rather than a statement. I'd never heard of it before, and for all I know it may be reliable. I just need proof that it is. Of course finding another source also resolves the issue. Please don't score out my comments, it's not rude but I just need to make sure the issues are satisfactorily resolved before removing them. Adam4267 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be a reference for the team formations.
 * That's better but when I looked at the refs they didn't appear to say that Walters was a second striker and for the formation given he doesn't appear to be.
 * I've removed Walters being a second striker to a striker alongside Jones.


 * References, especially in the report section, aren't always after punctuation.


 * Why is the section about TV viewing figures entitled Reaction? It doesn't seem like an apporopriate title.


 * I think having almost the entire match report from one source is a copyright violation.
 * Huh? I'm confused. I've transcribed it into my own words. I know articles where all the sources basically come from one book. I suppose they would be copyright violation too then?


 * I came across an issue here in that all the links to the FA's website don't seem to be working now. I don't if they will come back up or if they are permenantly down, but if they are permenantly down they will need to be replaced. I think there is 9 refs to the FA altogether. Adam4267 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated all the FA pages to the updated url addresses. I think they were just rerouted to new addresses by the FA. Stevo1000 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad in coverage


 * I'm concerned that the article may go into too much detail regarding the parade afterward.

Neutral

Is there no template for Stoke matches?
 * Not to my knowledge. I could remove the Manchester City matches template, but I'd like to think its there for quick reference to other finals than conveying bias.
 * just a note templates have no bearing on neutrality, the reason don't have a template is probably because they have not reached as many finals as city, that is something the editor can't help and is a neutrality issue. NapHit (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Stable
 * Appears to have been some edit-warring a while ago, but that seems to have cleared up now.

Images
 * It's not really clear what the picture in the infobox is. I know it is the programme because that is our standard picture to put in there but because of it's design it doesn't look like a programme and the ordinary reader will not know what it is. Especially considering it is being used under fair use rationale I think a caption should be put in.


 * It is not clear (to the non-football literate person) what the green/red arrows, yellow boxes and small numbers are in the details section are. Adam4267 (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we near an end to the review? Discussion started good but has stopped the past couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The prose is appalling. began the match the brighter of the two teams??? Stoke attempted to gain an equaliser after Manchester City's goal, but it was ineffective??? gained a berth ??? 92.40.97.68 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I advise you to learn how to use capital letters before slagging off others editors prose. A lot of football articles (including GA articiles) contain clichés or are slightly informal because of the nature of how football is described. To be honest though, your probably a bitter Manchester United fan or something pathetic like that, shame you hiding behind an IP address. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The prose isn't perfect but it doesn't have to be for GAs. Saying it is appalling is just totally ridiculous and insulting. Adam4267 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)