Talk:Football in the Philippines/GA2

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Copying over review from GA1:

Comments from GA1

 * Early years
 * What does the Manila Bay incursion have to do with the development of the sport? I assume something, but we need to know why - right now, it is a rather random insertion.
 * Because of the American's incursion, they continued the colonization in PHI, and introduced to us basketball. What if they didn't invade the Spaniards? Maybe soccer is already a popular sport here.


 * I am concerned with the close paraphrasing in the China reference. Article: Also some Filipinos that had been sent to college in Hong Kong and China, returned home and taught their friends a little bit about the game of soccer Source: Some boys that had been sent to college in Hong Kong, China, returned home and taught their friends a little bit about the fine game of soccer or association football. I noticed some close paraphrasing earlier, and am hoping I found isolated incidents, not patterns.
 * You may want to give W.H. Taft's title (POTUS)
 * Added


 * While I know what a hat trick is, not all readers will, as it is a jargony term. Please either explain, link, or replace.
 * Added a link, and a note.


 * In 1916, he continued his studies in medicine and played football for a local team Bohemian Sporting Club, there he helped the club to win two Philippine Championships in 1917 and 1918. This is a run-on sentence - either split into two, or split the clauses with a semicolon.
 * Done


 * However, all of that would change when the Americans marked the birth of basketball in the country. All of what would change? The previous paragraph talks about Alcantara's studies of medicine; I don't think that's what changed.
 * Fixed


 * Why were Americans in the Philippines?
 * Added a short (in a nutshell) description at the first paragraph. FairyTailRocks (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Two surveys was conducted in parts of Metro Manila in 2012, the first one that basketball is the most watched sport at 74.4% meanwhile football was placed fourth at 17.9%.[note 1] On the second survey, basketball was the most played sport during leisure time at 9.6% than football.[note 2][7] There are several grammar issues in this sentence. I still think a copy-edit from the guild of copy editors is necessary.

For now, I am going to stop here, and again suggest that another set of eyes copyedit the article. The Guild of Copy Editors does a great job with this. Right now, the prose is of insufficient quality for the article to achieve GA status.

I'll make a deal - I will close this nomination now if you request a copyedit from a third party (either GOCE or another editor, but another set of eyes is needed), and once you get a copyedit, nominate the article again, ping me, and I will review Talk:Football in the Philippines/GA2. Right now, I just don't see the article meeting the criteria.  Go  Phightins  !  22:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments for GA2

 * Early years
 * First paragraph needs a citation, but does provide necessary context.
 * Who won the championship in 1921?
 * Did Alcantara play extensively in the Philippines? Not mentioned.
 * Change "would decrease" to "decreased" - no need for present.
 * to (Bohemian Sporting Club is an entity, not a place, and thus "where" should not be used
 * seems unnecessary and off-topic.
 * ✅ Finished all of them.


 * Revival
 * Help from foreign countries and clubs
 * - can we get a conversion to Euros, US Dollars, or some more known currency than that of the Philippines please?
 * Am I completely missing the introduction of the abbreviation PFF? I assume it means Philippine Football Federation, however do not see that in the article. I could be mistaken though.
 * who or what is "popularly referred to as the "Azkals" - the coach or the team? Ambiguous.
 * Now we are switching currencies. Either everything needs to be in Philippine with conversions to euros (use Template:Convert), or vice versa, but no context for comparison as it stands.
 * to
 * to
 * Development of international and local competitions
 * to
 * and now American dollars come into the picture; we need continuity here please
 * Link de facto please. Also, I assume this is supported by the citation at the end of the paragraph, but an inline citation at the conclusion of the sentence might even be better.
 * Why have they not been able to do so?
 * This paragraph is a major problem. First, the phraseology "begged off" is too informal, vague, and inflammatory. Why did they do so, who says that they "begged off". Also, we need a citation to support And one typo I noticed -  to
 * ✅ Done. :)


 * National team success
 * Why focus solely on their successes? What happened during the 99-year lull?
 * United Football League
 * Can we link the league page as a main article or see also please?
 * What is the basis for teams being in one of the divisions? Performance? Size?
 * Second paragraph remains unsourced.
 * Qualification for men's Asian competitions
 * Should this be a level-three (===) subsection of the prior section?
 * National teams
 * Citations needed
 * Comment: should each of the three aforementioned sections be coalesced into a cohesive section describing football in the Philippines today? Frankly, the stadiums section would fit there to.
 * Notes
 * Do we have citations for these?
 * ✅ Added.


 * Lead
 * I always save my review of the lead until after reading the article, and while the first two paragraphs are solid, the last one does not succinctly and comprehensively encompass the modern-day stuff, and as such, does not summarize the article adequately.
 * ✅ Added more paragraphs.


 * References
 * Please make sure each of the references includes as many of the following as possible:
 * Publisher (appears to be in some, but not all)
 * Work (if applicable - for most of the references, it is applicable, yet not utilized)
 * Date of publication (sometimes it cannot be found, but just double check)
 * Doubled check all of it. And there is no problem with the refs. FairyTailRocks (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I will assume good faith that these are reliable sources ... I lack the expertise in this type of article to evaluate some of them. Perhaps I can find another editor to corroborate their reliability.  Go  Phightins  !  18:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon re-reading the article per my previous suggestions, it looks good, however, I will do one final check against the GA criteria.
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Concerned by close paraphrasing, still: "to tour schools across the country as part of smart's jump in campus roadshow" appears verbatim as it does in this press release. You may use "quotes" to attribute stuff like that, however you can't just throw stuff in verbatim from other sources. I am encouraged, however, by this report, which finds no copyright violations. Please just be careful about that.
 * ✅ Fixed the sentenced, to  and sure I will keep that in mind.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I think we are OK here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * OK here; I am ambivalent on the recent edit by a user with something about bananas in his user name that removed the table regarding national team performance; not a hill on which I am willing to die.
 * Left a note.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yup.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Good.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Just the one image; are there any free ones of the national team available?
 * The image of Paulino Alcantara was possibly taken in the 1910s. I am looking for more pictures about the Azkals. Thank you! FairyTailRocks (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: Double check for close paraphrasing, and we have a GA.
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment
I was surprised to see earwig's so-called "Copyvio detector" mentioned in a GA review, much less that its failure to find anything was considered an encouraging sign. That tool has been pulled from DYK because it gives a misleading sense of security: it is not at all comprehensive in its web search, and doesn't do any checking at all on the actual sources included in the article. I hope a spotcheck on those sources using the Duplication detector has been done, since it actually checks text in the article against text in sources. (It notes that an eight-word string, "schools across the country as part of Smart's", is still copied. That's a bit much; there are ways to rewrite this to avoid such close paraphrasing.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I was unaware of the "Copyvio detector"'s unreliability, which I had previously seen used/referenced, I already had run a few Duplication Detector reports, but per your suggestion, ran about 8 more, and they came up predominantly negative. Obviously, there was some nomenclature that, because of the nature of the article, has to be similar, but even those instances were few and far between. I found nothing blatant, and am comfortable passing the article at this point. That said,, thank you for your concern and bringing up the Copyvio Detector's unreliability. I will avoid it in the future.  Go  Phightins  !  18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)