Talk:2024 A-League Men Grand Final/GA1

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

Nominator: 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 21:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, I think this is going to have to be a quickfail. The article is orange-tagged with a very relevant concern, which is that there is no prose summary of the match itself. This satisfies quickfail criterion 3: It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. There are also some prose issues, particularly with the lead, that leaves it short of criteria 1a and 3a in my judgement. I decided to still go through the article and leave some comments about the prose for you to look at as well. Once the missing prose summary has been added and the rest of the prose comments have been taken care of, please feel free to renominate it. PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox
 * "second consecutive championship. The Mariners achieved" → If this is the case, I would mention that this was the last piece of the treble. If not, specify that they later won the treble
 * A brief explanation (only needs to be a couple words) of the Marston and Warren Medals would be helpful
 * The lead also needs some sort of summary of events in the match
 * "which was the seventh appearance for Melbourne Victory" → not sure that this has any direct connection to the coach. Recommend having a sentence before the match summary in the lead about how many times each club had won/appeared, maybe that CCM were defending champs, etc.
 * Overall, the lead needs some work as it does not adequately summarize the match itself and focuses instead mainly on trivia and post-match events and awards

Background
 * "The Mariners came into the final as premiers" → what does this mean?
 * "For Melbourne Victory, the club were playing in their seventh" → simplify and reword to "Melbourne Victory were playing in..."
 * "fifth Grand Final win and to equal the record for most championships to Big Blue rivals" → this wording gets very cluttery, particularly the part I've bolded
 * "all of which have ended in" → just simple past tense works best here
 * "and two points separated from Wellington Phoenix in second" → this becomes apparent with the league table a later section but I'd clarify here that you're saying CCM, not Melbourne, were two points from Wellington

Road to the final
 * "to decide the winner that will face each other" → switches from singular to plural
 * "The Away Goals rule is not used in the semi-finals" → "away goals" doesn't need caps
 * "The finals series will also utilise..." → written in future tense, as if the final hasn't happened yet
 * "which allows referees decisions" → needs to be possessive, as in "referees'"
 * "defeated the Bulls 4–0 to" → I don't think using a nickname of one of the teams (which is not otherwise mentioned) - especially a team who did not participate in the match in question - is warranted here. Just say "....at Sydney Football Stadium and won 4–0..."
 * Any reason the league tables in the template cut off at fifth place when the top six progress to the playoffs?
 * "opponent for the semi-final was drawn to be Sydney FC and was played " → "was drawn to be" makes it seem random, though the previous section and the template on the finals series page make it look pre-determined. Also, sentence changes from being about their opponent to being about the game itself ("...and was played...")
 * "The Sky Blues had two players" → again, nix the nickname. It's not mentioned before so I have no idea who the Sky Blues are without having to read further or Google it
 * Link red cards to Fouls and misconduct (association football)
 * "by video assistant referee" → missing word (the video...); also VAR should have a link
 * "was given a red card in the final minutes for dissent" → dissent is a yellow-card offense, not red; did match summaries use "dissent" or some other terminology?
 * "after a 1–1 scoreline in regular time" → was extra time played? If so, recommend "after a 1–1 scoreline after extra time"
 * "during the shoot-out, with a goal each by" → did these players score the goals in the match itself or in the shootout?
 * "player sent-off" → this link should be moved (since "sent off" is mentioned in the previous section)
 * "in the first-leg" → no need for a hyphen
 * "for the Phoenix during regular time" → remove italics

Pre-match
 * "only time a set venue" → what is a set venue?
 * "The venue was set to break the previous crowd record" → the venue didn't break a record, the crowd broke a record at the venue
 * "In previous meetings, Victory has met Central Coast 54 times," → repetitive (see bolded bits)
 * "appearance as a fourth official in the 2020 final" → link fourth official
 * "Wright made his debut as assistant referee" → this was his first ever AR appointment or his first final as an AR?
 * "was the video assistant referee (VAR) " → remove this link and move it up to the first mention of VAR
 * "Broxham would feature in his last match" → "Broxham featured"
 * "In the starting line-up, Mark Jackson named an unchanged line-up " → I thought each team named two changes to the lineup?

Match
 * As mentioned above, a prose summary of the match is essential

Post-match
 * "Around 21,379 fans attended the match" → saying "Around" is strange when followed by a number so specific - do we have a reason not to believe the 21379 figure?
 * " to Ange Postecoglou's Roar, that went 36" → what is "Roar"? also, remove comma
 * "until 2011" → starting when?
 * "until 2011, and Graham Arnold's" → remove comma
 * "finished as the top goalscorer for the club" → specify CCM, since the last two clubs mentioned are "Roar" and Sydney FC
 * Explain what the medals are here as well, if not in the lead

That's the prose comments I have. Again, feel free to renominate when the match summary has been added and the article is more ready for GA. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a comprehensive review of the prose (and the absence of prose). Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)