Wikipedia:Peer review/2006 FIFA World Cup/archive1

2006 FIFA World Cup
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted some feedback on what in it needs improvement in order for this article to be able to become featured. It had been previously nominated for featured status three times (last nomination was in July 2007), and has changed a lot since its the last version that was nominated. Please feel free to give any suggestions that would help in improving the article.

Thanks,   A R  TYOM    19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:
 * Copyediting. Below is a small fraction of the problems that a copyeditor would probably catch and fix.
 * In the lead, "eighteenth" should be "18th", and Italy is referred to as a "who" rather than an "it". The Italy sentence should read, "The tournament was won by Italy, which claimed its fourth World Cup title."
 * I disagree with this. Your suggestion makes the sentence read strangely. In my experience of writing about sporting events, football teams are usually referred to as "whos" rather than "whiches". – PeeJay 11:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about this. I am an outsider to the sport.
 * A change in word order is needed for clarity in the sentence, "Morocco was the first nation to be eliminated with only three of the 24 votes cast". I might suggest "Morocco was the first to be eliminated when it got only 3 votes out of a possible 24".
 * In the Qualification section, a sentence says, "Hosts Germany were granted automatic qualification with the remaining thirty-one finals places divided among the continental confederations." Either "hosts" should be "host", and "were" should be "was", or something is missing. In addition, "thirty-one" should be "31".
 * Jargon. Below is a partial list of jargon in the article that needs wikilinking or clarification.
 * In the phrase, "The 2006 World Cup ranks fourth in non-unique viewers", what is the meaning of "non-unique"?
 * Assuming that you're actually asking a question and not just prompting for an explanation to be put into the article, "non-unique" means that viewers may have watched more than one match, meaning that they are counted twice in the number of viewers. Therefore, the viewers counted in the total are non-unique. – PeeJay 11:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An insider might understand the term, but an outsider probably will not. Encyclopedia readers include a lot of outsiders.
 * In "Pot C contained eight of the nine remaining European sides", what is the meaning of "sides"?
 * "Seed" should probably be wiki-linked or explained.
 * In the sentence, "In the special pot, Serbia and Montenegro (white ball) was drawn first, then their group was drawn (black ball) from the three seeded non-European nations, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico", what do "white ball" and "black ball" refer to?
 * What does "order of fixtures" refer to?
 * What does "settled" mean in the phrase, "the group was among the first to be settled"?
 * Terms such as "wing-back" and "centre-back" should be wikilinked.
 * The red and yellow cards need to be linked or briefly explained.
 * "Match reports are available in the article for each group." What are match reports, and what does the "article for each group" refer to?
 * In the Group E section, "tough backline" and "single own goal" need to be explained or wikilinked.
 * Other thoughts:
 * "The stadia and transportation systems were state-of-the-art, and the German people were lauded for their hospitality and enthusiasm and gained new friends world-wide." This is peacock POV and should be removed.
 * The Squads section is only three sentences long. Perhaps it could be (a) combined with something or (b) expanded a bit.
 * I hope these comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All ✅, except the "non-unique viewers" suggestion. I'll think more about that! Thanks,   A R  TYOM    11:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: I see several statements in the lower sections that either come from personal research or from a source or sources not cited. For example, "Trinidad and Tobago earned some international respect" and "Africans had a respectable tournament" and "Brazilians ... were sluggish and lethargic" are claims that involve analysis and express a point of view. These kinds of judgments should be attributed to the sports writers or other experts who made them. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. These may take a while though.   A R  TYOM    19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from  I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 14 is lacking publisher information (Palmer, Kevin "Group C ...)
 * Current ref 15 is lakcing publisher information (O'Dea "FIFA changes...)
 * A big problem is lack of sources on many section of the text. Also, there is a lot of tables, graphics, etc. which detracts from the flow of the prose. At this point, the lack of citations would keep the article from GA status, much less FA status.
 * Do we need the large gallery of the photos of the venues?
 * I corrected the publisher for ref 14, but ref 15 doesn't really have a publisher (the article is from GeoCities), so I guess it can be left as it is.
 * Regarding the tables and graphics - I always thought that articles look better with images and tables, rather than if they are composed of prose only. Besides, the topic of the article itself suggests that tables will be used.
 * Regarding the gallery of the venue photos, I added it recently. Previously it was just a table of stadia. When I was trying to improve the article, I looked at the different language wikipedias where it is featured, and noticed that most had the gallery of the venues. I don't mind going back to the old format, however, as long as the reader benefits from it.   A R  TYOM    16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)