Talk:2016 NCAA Division I men's soccer championship game/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cobyan02069 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be taking the time to review this article for WP:GOOD over the coming days. I will leave a message on major contributor talk pages to let them know of the process of review. Cobyan02069 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by John of Reading
I've made a few copyedits. My comments come from the wrong side of the Atlantic, and from someone who doesn't follow soccer at all: Hope this helps. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The word "Cardinal" is used in the fourth sentence of the lead section without explanation. Could the third sentence begin with Stanford Cardinal instead of just Stanford?
 * 2) "two major road victories" - I've never met "road" used in this sense, and initially parsed it as "two major road victories" before doing a double-take. Could that be reworded? Is it worth a link to Road (sports)?
 * 3) "a conference record of eight wins and one draw and a loss, apiece" - I don't understand "apiece" here. The sentence seems complete without it.
 * 4) "Kevin Politz's head sailed just over the bar" - how alarming! I would expect "header" there. Is this a US usage?
 * 5) The infobox image is a non-free logo. I think its use in this second article contravenes the "minimum use" requirements, in particular point 14 at WP:NFC. In any case there is no non-free use rationale on the file page for its use here.
 * Hi John of Reading, few comments on these remarks. Before I get started, thanks for taking the time to look over these.


 * 1) The Cardinal is the nickname of Stanford, which is normal in American college sports. However, it is worded weird, so I changed it to "Stanford".
 * 2) In American sports a road victory means you won a game away from home. It is common use in American English.
 * 3) Haha! Yeah I think Kevin Politz paragraph is intended to say "header".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobyan02069 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) I can ask Quidster4040 to reword that, because that seems like awkward wording.
 * 5) Again, I can consult the author, Quidster, about that, but it might be in the best interest to remove, unless there's an unknown provision we're unaware of.

Thanks again, John. I'll add additional comments soon. Cobyan02069 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Checking against the GA criteria

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


 * 1) For the most part, this article is well-written, however there are a few fragments mentioned by John of Reading to address. Address these items and I will approve.
 * 2) The article is well sourced and the reference templates are properly used and filled out.
 * 3) The article features broad coverage.
 * 4) Quidster wrote the article with a neutral point-of-view
 * 5) The article is Stable
 * 6) There is a fair amount of relevant images that illustrate the article

There are a few typos needed addressing, if addressed, I will supportive of this reaching GA status! Cobyan02069 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to see if you guys were close on this. Cheers!  Kees08  (Talk)   07:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the protocol here, but some of my comments had already been addressed, and I've just edited the article to fix the others. In particular I have removed the non-free logo. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Status check
At this point, since Cobyan02069 hasn't edited Wikipedia since late March, I think we have to consider that he has effectively abandoned this review, and should not be a further consideration. John of Reading has made some helpful comments, but I don't believe he has attempted a complete review here, which is what is needed.

It doesn't seem to me that a thorough examination has yet been given of the article's prose. In particular, the use of commas is odd in places, there are missing words, the tense sometimes changes, and so on. The "well-written" criterion includes the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct, and there needs to be a bit more work here. A few examples:
 * The opening sentence: The 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game was the final game of the 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship, determining the national champion for the 2016 NCAA Division I men's soccer season. Why switch from past tense for "determining"? Either "and determined" or "which determined" would be better.
 * The next sentence: that is home to Major League Soccer club, Houston Dynamo. (Awkward wording, and I'm not quite sure why the Houston Dynamo are mentioned here but not in the body of the article.)
 * The second lead paragraph is repetitive due to its construction: better to mention the seeding of the clubs up front, and add that they (therefore) had a bye in the first round. Using "entered" for both the first and third sentences like that is another example of the repetitive nature here
 * In Road to the final, I'm not sure how 2015 had been the Cardinals' first finals appearance; runners-up, by definition, would have come in second (that is, lost the finals), and they were runners-up in 1998 and 2002. If this is not the case, then the wording needs clarification.
 * In Venue selection, the second sentence uses both "being" (wrong tense) and "in conjuncture" (better: "in conjunction"): The announcement of Houston's BBVA Compass Stadium being the College Cup host was in conjuncture with the announcement of the Houston region hosting the 2016 and 2017 NCAA Division III Women’s Golf Championship and the 2018 NCAA Division II Women’s Golf Championship. Rather than have a vague announcement sentence first, include the actual venue in the first sentence, and then note that it was part of a larger announcement in the second (if that is even relevant here: might it not be unnecessary detail and therefore not appropriate per the broadness criterion?)
 * Odd commas: in First half, Due to the turnaround, Wake Forest Bobby Muuss, made two notable changes in the team's lineup from their 2–1 semifinal victory against Denver. (note also failure to describe Bobby Muuss) and Ema Twumasi, who was the program's top scorer in the tournament remained in the starting lineup as well as club captain, Ian Harkes. later in that paragraph. (As written, it could be read that Twumasi was both top scorer and club captain.)

Finally, I wonder at most of the images, which are not of the games being discussed (or even in the seasons being discussed). The criterion states: images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions; I'm not sure they are relevant. (The picture of the stadium the actual game was played in is fine.)

I think that's enough to show that the article was not adequately reviewed initially, and requires a full review by whoever takes this on. In any event, to answer Kees08's query, it certainly doesn't meet the GA criteria in its present form. I would be happier if the GA nominator, Quidster4040, had been more actively participating in this review; this has been open for three and a half months, yet Quidster4040 has yet to make a single post on this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I think we will need to agree to disagree, but before you go any further, I will need you not jump to conclusions like you have done excessively. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quidster4040, forgive me, but what excessive conclusions are these? That you had not previously posted to this page is a fact that is evident from its edit history. If you think that my examples of prose issues are incorrect and don't plan to address them because you disagree with my assessment, that's your choice, but a normal nomination-and-review process will have comments of this nature from a reviewer that a nominator is expected to address, and reviews with unaddressed issues do not get passed. You might want to consider submitting a request for a copyedit to the Guild of Copy Editors, since their edits should take care of the bulk of the issues I've noted and others of a similar nature. Their backlog is unusually short at the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, since this is your first nomination: most submitted articles are close to meeting the GA criteria, but need some work to get all the way there. This amount of work can vary, but it's typically doable: it is the job of the reviewer to check the article against the criteria and its sources and note what needs revising to fully attain compliance with the criteria. It's an expected part of the process; it happened to me in my own GA submissions. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Final closure
It has been over three weeks since the above posts, and there have been no edits made to the article in the interim, or indeed any edits at all by the nominator since this review was opened, aside from adding a single wikilink back on March 20. Since the original reviewer hasn't edited Wikipedia for over four months, someone else needs to bring this review to a conclusion and given the prose and other issues I identified above, all unaddressed, the only possible conclusion is that the article does not meet the GA criteria. The nomination is being closed as unlisted. It can be nominated again once the issues raised have been addressed, but I strongly recommend that the nominator be prepared to address any issues raised in the new review in a timely fashion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)