Wikipedia:Peer review/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive2

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women


FAC coordinator Ian Rose suggested I open a peer review after he closed the nomination, which in 2 months time had attracted 2 supports and 1 oppose. I would like to be able to bring it back to FAC, so any suggestions are very welcome.

Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720
Hi, I hope these comments help. I do not have much experience with soccer/football so this is from a non-expert perspective.
 * Thanks ever so much, Z1720, for taking the time. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lede
 * The first sentence is a run-on sentence. This should be split.
 * Done


 * "having not yet won a game." Change to "having not won a game in that season"
 * Done


 * "The international press also covered the record-breaking game." This statement is very general. How was it covered? Who covered it?
 * Added some specifics. Replaced covered with a more basic "reported"


 * "Arsenal finished the season in third position while Bristol finished in tenth position, narrowly avoiding relegation. Miedema ended the campaign as the league's top scorer with sixteen goals and was named Women's Footballer of Year by the Football Writers' Association." So this feels like we are going off-topic, especially for the lede. Put this match in the context of these achievements, or remove them from the lede. After all, this article is about the match, not the teams or the season.
 * I could not find any source that tied the awards directly to the game, so I removed that bit. As for the teams' positions at the end of the season, I see that the FA Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. does end its lede with end of seasons standings, so I would prefer to keep it. I do believe the lede should answer the natural questions "they surely won the league, didn't they?" and "they surely must have been relegated, didn't they?"
 * Did this match play a part in this win/loss in the standings? For example, did the 11 goals help Arsenal win the table for goal differentials? Was this game part of Bristol's losing streak? I just want to make sure that the information ties back to this match. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Facts: Arsenal's goals were irrelevant at the end of the season, as they simply didn't win enough of their games. Same actually for Bristol, they could have lost 100-0 and still not get relegated. Bristol's loss was part of their winless start, which ended in round 10, when they defeated Man U. But I don't see what we can do in the lede, we don't want too much detail, but maybe you have an idea?

Background
 * "The 1 December 2019 association football match between Arsenal Women and Bristol City Women took place in the eighth round of the 2019–20 FA Women's Super League (FA WSL) season." This sentence feels out of place chronologically. Mention of the eighth round of the league later in the section.
 * One reviewer at FAC brought this in. I normally start my background at some point in history and then work my way up to the current. But this reviewer said "The background seems to start out of nowhere. It should be something more like: "The match was played in this league. This league is..." Looking at other FAs and FACs, such as Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., 2019 FA Cup Final, Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989), Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002), I see that what is here now is out of the ordinary, and I have changed it back to what it was. Please check if ok.
 * I like what is now in the article better, as it is starting from the macro (the league) and working towards the micro (the match). Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Prior to round eight the defending champions had recorded six wins and one defeat, having lost their away game at 2017–18 champions Chelsea, resulting in eighteen points from seven games." There are four notes/citations after this sentence. Can we remove any of them, or maybe move some to earlier in the sentence?
 * Done


 * "Arsenal were level with Manchester City" Can we change level to tied? I think level is a British euphanism.
 * Done


 * "By the end of November, Bristol were still winless, having only managed to gain points from three draws," Change to "By the end of November, Bristol were still winless but managed to gain points from three draws"
 * Done


 * " including one with struggling Liverpool." Why is this important in the article?
 * At the end of the season it was very close whether Bristol or Liverpool got relegated, so their direct match mattered in the bigger story of survival.
 * I did not get that impression from my readthrough of the article. It might need to be more explicitly explained. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "struggling Liverpool" is not sufficient. Would "including one with bottom-tabled Liverpool" be more helpful?
 * Bottom-placed

Summary
 * "The match kicked off at 12:30 pm at Meadow Park on 1 December 2019.[23][1]" References should be in numerical order. Also, kicked off might be considered jargon and can be replaced with "started"
 * Done


 * "but came to nothing." Replace with "but were unsuccessful" or "but did not result in a goal"
 * Done


 * "Miedema became a goalscorer herself with" Replace with "Miedema scored with"
 * Done


 * "Miedema's first hat-trick of the day" replace with "Her third goal"
 * Done


 * "when the Bristol defence did not deal well with a ball from Evans," what does this mean? Be specific about what happened
 * Done


 * "Miedema resumed scoring six minutes into the second half, with a right-footed shot from the centre of the penalty area that landed just inside the goal, having received the ball from Daniëlle van de Donk." Flip the sentence to talk about the pass first, then the goal.
 * Done. Have a look and see if it's ok.

Reactions
 * "and called her "unplayable"." What do you mean by unplayable? I would consider this a bad thing, saying that a team cannot put her on the pitch. Can you expand upon this in the article?
 * It means unstoppable. Is that an acceptable term? For now I have removed it altogether, which would be fine as well, since we already have the Times saying "it was difficult to find fresh superlatives to describe Miedema", we do not need 2 things from the Times.


 * "Chelsea had their game against Everton postponed because of a frozen pitch, keeping them on nineteen points." Was it postponed that same day? If so, mention that.
 * Done. Well, I refer to it as eighth-round game

Aftermath
 * "Bristol dropped from tenth place out of twelve to eleventh" Swap to "Bristol dropped from tenth place to eleventh, placing them second from the bottom of the table." Or "Bristol dropped from tenth place to eleventh, out of a total of twelve teams."
 * Done.


 * There's a lot of information in the aftermath section about the rest of the season, which seems odd to me because this article is about the match. I would get this checked by a football/soccer article writer to ensure that this section is not off-topic. Also, this information should always relate back to the match: how did the match affect the team's standing for the rest of the season? Keep the information about COVID cancelling their rematch.
 * At my first FAC I did not have anything about the rest of the season and the consensus was that it needed that. Checking some other match articles with FA status I can see that this is indeed what is needed.
 * Keep it if that is what is needed. I still think information about the match's impact on their final standings is preferable, as I mention in my comments in the lede above. This is not something I would withhold my support for in an FAC. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we have more room to provide the necessary details. So I made some changes. I started the last paragraph about Bristol's continued winless streak. As for Arsenal, I think the bit "In the following weeks, Arsenal kept their top league position" is a good bridge between the match and the wider season. Not sure what else I can do here, I looked for something in the sources but could not find anything.

That's all the comments I have. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good to see it is largely comprehensible by a hockey fan! Thanks very much, much appreciated! Edwininlondon (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments added above. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Please check my changes. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Thanks very much, ChrisTheDude, for taking the time! Edwininlondon (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The standard in football articles is to refer to a team by its full name (excluding F.C. or similar letters) at least the first time it is mentioned in the lead and/or body (as you have in fact done in most cases). Therefore, in the lead (and later on) it should refer to Liverpool's previous record win over Doncaster Rovers Belles, not just "Doncaster"
 * Done


 * I have to confess I do not follow women's football, but in the men's game Bristol City are never ever referred to as simply "Bristol" because of the existence of Bristol Rovers (in the same way that neither Man U nor Man City is ever referred to as just "Manchester", even in a match report where only one of them is playing). Is this different in the women's game?
 * Good point. It turns out to be complicated. The team actually started out as Bristol Rovers, then changed their name to Bristol Academy, and then again to Bristol City. So I checked the various match reports. The FA shortens to Bristol. The BBC always uses Bristol City. I checked what they do elsewhere, but they happily reduce Birmingham City to Birmingham, so the reluctance to use just Bristol seems deliberate. I have made the change to Bristol City throughout the article.


 * "bottom-tabled Liverpool" - I have literally never in British English seen a team referred to as being "bottom-tabled". It should be "bottom-placed"
 * Done


 * "Miedema, who took a shot with her right footed" - right foot, surely?
 * Surely indeed


 * "Miedema and Evans then set each other up for the goals that followed" - this makes it sound like you are referring to the very next two goals scored, but you make no mention of  Evans being involved in the 8th goal.  Do you mean that they set each other up for two of the next three goals?
 * I see you get confused, even though Evans is mentioned for the 8th. Facts: 8-0: Evans assist, Miedema goal. 9-0: Miedema assist, Evans goal. I think the ; does not help. I have changed it to this: First, Evans assisted Miedema with a pass from the edge of the penalty area, who, after a short run, scored Arsenal's eighth. Next, on the hour mark, Miedema's chip over the defence set up Evans for her second goal of the day, bringing the score to 9–0.


 * If there were seven named subs, why are only five listed for one team?
 * Good spot. I had not noticed that. None of the sources say anything about that. BBC says there were no injuries. I can speculate wildly (Arsenal academy was also playing in day before or after, while Bristol academy not), but without sources, I'm afraid we have to leave it as is.
 * Might be worth putting up to seven named subs, maybe....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Done Edwininlondon (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Refs are not in correct order after the first sentence of Reactions
 * Done


 * There's a random gap between the two refs after the first sentence of Aftermath
 * Eagle eyes!


 * "But on 19 January 2020" - best not to start a sentence with "But"
 * Done


 * "they lost 1–4 at home to Chelsea" - standard practice is always to show the higher score first, irrespective of the result so it should say they lost 4-1 (as in fact you do in the next sentence)
 * Done


 * Think that's it from me - it reads very well overall and I don't think there are any issues with jargon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Very much appreciated. I feel I can bring this back to FAC now. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Hmlarson
I think this reads great and is ready for FA. Hmlarson (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)