Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 01:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

So I sure be reviewing this article to see if these do meet the Good Article criteria. HawkAussie (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead

 * ...they had a perfect record with four titles, while Qatar were playing in their first,... - Maybe change this section so that it stated that Japan won their previous four finals. Also you could end the sentence from Japan side and drop the world "while" in there.
 * Done, but in a different way.
 * You could also include a extended summary of the match instead of stating the result of the game.
 * Added the timing of goals, but I don't want to fatten it up with goalscorers and the like.

Venue

 * This is properly just me, but could you maybe move the image of the stadium to the left instead of the right so their is a big gap in the middle of this article.
 * The left alignment would have caused spacing issues with the next header, so I used stack to create a half-solution using the right alignment.
 * This might not be relevant but also add the fact that it was one of the stadiums that hosted the 2003 FIFA World Youth Championship as it was the final venue.
 * Added.

Japan

 * The final sentence in the second paragraph is a bit on the long side. Maybe have something that is the match than in a different sentence state that they finished top.
 * Split the sentence.
 * The quarter-finals marked the debut of the video assistant referee(VAR) system at the Asian Cup... - I don't know if this is just me but seems to be added on in a way that is tacked on at the start to make it more good.
 * The VAR was introduced in this round and was used to decide the match for Japan, so I think it should stay.
 * ...Japan used an improved attack in the second half to win 3–0 and advance... - You say their was an improved attack in the second half but nothing about the first half in the semi final??
 * Reworded and added that the first half was scoreless...the match description did not mention much about the first half.

Qatar

 * ...group stage in 2000 and 2011 before being eliminated in the quarter-finals. - By who did they eliminate them.
 * I don't think listing the quarter-final opponents is necessary, as they aren't mentioned in the citations.
 * ...that broke their record for largest win margin - Forgot to add "their between for and largest.
 * Fixed and changed to "margin of victory"
 * No reference to the game against Switzerland.
 * The citation covers both the Swiss and Iceland matches.

Pre-match

 * video assistant referee is not meant to be linked here.
 * Unlinked.

Match

 * It was the first goal to be conceded by Qatar during the tournament. - This sentence feels like it could better be incorporated into the previous sentence.
 * Merged.
 * video assistant referee is not meant to be linked here.
 * Unlinked.

Post-match

 * Again you have video assistant referee as linked in this section. Maybe you could have it as VAR and that is the same in a couple of the earlier sections of the article.
 * Fixed, but I think it's better to have it unabbreviated at this point.

Final Comments
So just do some fixing up with these little sections and I reckon it would be good enough for the Good Article. HawkAussie (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed everything above.  Sounder Bruce  23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job HawkAussie (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)