GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
Hi there, I'm ready for my first GA review (I notice you have done many more!). Thankfully as this event is in living memory, it will not be too hard to evaluate.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Not sure if this is about prose or factuality, but the phrasing "Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, the nation's highest diplomat in Qatar" could be confusing. It suggests Blinken is like an ambassador or consul to Qatar, but I think it's trying to say he was the highest person on the
United States presidential line of succession to be at the World Cup? I could not find the words "highest" or "senior" in the text. I think it's just safe enough to say Blinken's office, and anyone wanting more details can follow the link?
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The lead is short but to the point and does not dwell on details. It mentions the closeness between three of the competing teams, and the conflict and controversy involving the fourth.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Done Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply "The United States team outplayed Wales in the first half, but in the second half Wales outshone them, being tactically better, particularly after introducing substitute Kieffer Moore". This isn't completely different to what the source says, but it's not exactly to the source either. There is no mention of "tactics" in the source, but this passage "It was a tale of two halves and Wales manager Rob Page made the key change at half-time when he replaced the ineffective Dan James with the taller Kieffer Moore, who was exactly what the side had been missing in the opening period." almost reflects the article text. But definitely, the source verifies the the US dominated the first half and the Welsh the second. Perhaps everything can stay except the clause about being tactically better
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
18:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Could there be something added early on about manager/player reactions to the draw? We already have what pundits thought of it. Given that three of these countries speak the same language and are entwined in football, there would have been a lot said and it would set the scene of how each country was going into it. But it's OK if you don't want to stuff the page with quotations. There's also something more to be said about the fourth of those teams, Iran. Manager Queiroz
supported player protests, then after Iran lost, he
called protesters "not welcome". He took issue with the BBC for asking political questions in press conferences,
[4], which the Guardian called "extraordinary". I understand if you don't want to swell the page with non-football, but as the lead and earlier sections mention the geopolitical aspect of the group, it's not too farfetched to include it.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There is appropriate and succinct detail of qualification before the group. The match reports are enyclopedic rather than full newspaper reports: they mention key details such as the controversial major injury in the England-Iran game or the substitution in the Wales-USA game that the source attributed with changing the direction of the game. These reports would be digestible to fans of a passing interest and would remain understandable years into the future.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added a piece on this during the first match. I'm not sure what the coaches/players say about the draw is all that important, unless they say something specific that I've not seen. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Match reports are written in a way that reflects the sources. The non-football elements of this group are mentioned in a factual matter that is not taking sides; all opinions are clearly attributed to relevant figures.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Naturally there were a lot of edits in November and December and dispute between editors on how exactly to sum up six 90-minute episodes in an encylopedic way. The page is stable since then.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Captions are fine. Kane image is relevant to the armband discussion. The Wales Iran caption is brief, but that's fine, it's not crying out to have the names of the players.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass/fail:
All in all this is a great article that gets key information across. It is well-written and does not fall into the swamp of overdetail that affects articles on recent events. I only have the comments I made earlier, some about verification and some about potential further information, which may or may not be relevant to the article in your opinion. Thank you
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi! Thanks for the review. Full disclosure, I am on holiday at the moment without the best internet access. I shall endeavour to pick up these items, but if you could keep this open until at least a day or two after I get back (I'm back a week on Wednesday), I would appreciate it, in case I need to do a deep dive for any sources. Thank you. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Great work. I just fiddled with the code on the new references (I know it's picky to do anything except basic copyediting on a phone) and now I'm passing this
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
16:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
Hi there, I'm ready for my first GA review (I notice you have done many more!). Thankfully as this event is in living memory, it will not be too hard to evaluate.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Not sure if this is about prose or factuality, but the phrasing "Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, the nation's highest diplomat in Qatar" could be confusing. It suggests Blinken is like an ambassador or consul to Qatar, but I think it's trying to say he was the highest person on the
United States presidential line of succession to be at the World Cup? I could not find the words "highest" or "senior" in the text. I think it's just safe enough to say Blinken's office, and anyone wanting more details can follow the link?
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The lead is short but to the point and does not dwell on details. It mentions the closeness between three of the competing teams, and the conflict and controversy involving the fourth.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Done Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply "The United States team outplayed Wales in the first half, but in the second half Wales outshone them, being tactically better, particularly after introducing substitute Kieffer Moore". This isn't completely different to what the source says, but it's not exactly to the source either. There is no mention of "tactics" in the source, but this passage "It was a tale of two halves and Wales manager Rob Page made the key change at half-time when he replaced the ineffective Dan James with the taller Kieffer Moore, who was exactly what the side had been missing in the opening period." almost reflects the article text. But definitely, the source verifies the the US dominated the first half and the Welsh the second. Perhaps everything can stay except the clause about being tactically better
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
18:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Could there be something added early on about manager/player reactions to the draw? We already have what pundits thought of it. Given that three of these countries speak the same language and are entwined in football, there would have been a lot said and it would set the scene of how each country was going into it. But it's OK if you don't want to stuff the page with quotations. There's also something more to be said about the fourth of those teams, Iran. Manager Queiroz
supported player protests, then after Iran lost, he
called protesters "not welcome". He took issue with the BBC for asking political questions in press conferences,
[4], which the Guardian called "extraordinary". I understand if you don't want to swell the page with non-football, but as the lead and earlier sections mention the geopolitical aspect of the group, it's not too farfetched to include it.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There is appropriate and succinct detail of qualification before the group. The match reports are enyclopedic rather than full newspaper reports: they mention key details such as the controversial major injury in the England-Iran game or the substitution in the Wales-USA game that the source attributed with changing the direction of the game. These reports would be digestible to fans of a passing interest and would remain understandable years into the future.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added a piece on this during the first match. I'm not sure what the coaches/players say about the draw is all that important, unless they say something specific that I've not seen. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Match reports are written in a way that reflects the sources. The non-football elements of this group are mentioned in a factual matter that is not taking sides; all opinions are clearly attributed to relevant figures.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Naturally there were a lot of edits in November and December and dispute between editors on how exactly to sum up six 90-minute episodes in an encylopedic way. The page is stable since then.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Captions are fine. Kane image is relevant to the armband discussion. The Wales Iran caption is brief, but that's fine, it's not crying out to have the names of the players.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass/fail:
All in all this is a great article that gets key information across. It is well-written and does not fall into the swamp of overdetail that affects articles on recent events. I only have the comments I made earlier, some about verification and some about potential further information, which may or may not be relevant to the article in your opinion. Thank you
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi! Thanks for the review. Full disclosure, I am on holiday at the moment without the best internet access. I shall endeavour to pick up these items, but if you could keep this open until at least a day or two after I get back (I'm back a week on Wednesday), I would appreciate it, in case I need to do a deep dive for any sources. Thank you. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Great work. I just fiddled with the code on the new references (I know it's picky to do anything except basic copyediting on a phone) and now I'm passing this
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
16:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply