Talk:2019 FIFA Club World Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Will review later. To start: the Guardian live thread citations should be combined together, even if they are separate pages.  Sounder Bruce  17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have Not found that on any other Final articles before but I have combined the final two as they are the same. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 12:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , anything else you would like me to address? REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 11:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still working on my comments for this review. I've had a few projects to finish up over the week, so this one fell a bit behind.  Sounder Bruce  21:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you think that you will be able to review over the next week or so? I completely understand if you feel that you are unable to complete the review and I will ask if someone else can finish it if you feel that would be best. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 18:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been busy IRL but will have a bit of time this week.  Sounder Bruce  04:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The lead should not have citations for only half of the statement. Per WP:LEADCITE, it's all or nothing (and the latter is generally preferred)
 * The prize money does not seem to be an important enough detail to be included in the lead. I would suggest adding the goalscorer and MOTM instead.


 * Teams
 * The table has no citations and doesn't seem to provide anything that couldn't be turned into prose.
 * This section might work better if merged into the Background.
 * The note about recognition should be integrated into prose and the list portion is unnecessary.


 * Venue
 * The venue change should be explained with a reason (if found in a source)
 * No information about the bidding process?


 * Background
 * Some more information about the 1981 matchup would work well here.
 * "also losing both" drop the also
 * A comma is needed before "respectively"


 * Route to the final
 * The table serves no purpose.
 * The link to the Champions League should include the year of the competition
 * U-23 should not be abbreviated on its first use
 * "forced", "beaten", "heaviest" are not appropriate
 * Back-to-back paragraphs that begin with "Liverpool" and "Flamengo" aren't great for readability
 * "The Reds" should be explained as Liverpool's nickname before it is used as a standalone
 * CONCACAF should be used instead of North America (or if the continent really is needed, put it in parenthesis)
 * "as Rogelio...", this fragment is never finished, so replaced "as" with "through a goal by"
 * "of a volley" should be "off a volley"
 * Again, year needed before the competition due to the nature of the CWC
 * "started poorly" according to who? Is this really necessary? This paragraph should ideally be around the same length as Liverpool's semifinal summary.
 * "nearly conceded", "different posture", "higher defensive line", "go-ahead header"...language straight out of a match report, and not appropriate for a GA.
 * "advance" should be "advanced"


 * Match summary
 * No coverage of the starting lineups, referee, ceremonies, or kickoff conditions (as mentioned in the infobox)
 * "find shots" should be "found shots", but this sentence is a wash
 * "spell of possession", "several sights of goal", "dangerous shot", "tipped over the frame" are all inappropriate terms
 * "sixty percent possession" needs an "of"
 * Commas needed after mentioning the minutes
 * The foul being waived off after video review is not explained well; was this a referee decision?


 * Post-match
 * "win" is overused in the first sentence
 * Should follow up with their respective performances in continental competitions after the tournament
 * No mention of celebrations in Liverpool? This section is very sparse as it is, so anything to fill it out would be appreciated.


 * References
 * All non-English citations need translated titles
 * The Guardian should be italicized consistently
 * Ref 6 (BBC Sport) should use CS1 like the other citations
 * There's not a lot of diversity shown in the choice of sources. A retrospective or two from longer after the match would be ideal.


 * Assessment

I'm afraid this article is not ready to be a GA in its current state. I would suggest trying a peer review and nominating again once these issues have been fixed.  Sounder Bruce  00:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)