Talk:2019 FIFA Club World Cup final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review later. To start: the Guardian live thread citations should be combined together, even if they are separate pages. Sounder Bruce 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce, I have Not found that on any other Final articles before but I have combined the final two as they are the same. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce:, anything else you would like me to address? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on my comments for this review. I've had a few projects to finish up over the week, so this one fell a bit behind. Sounder Bruce 21:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce:, do you think that you will be able to review over the next week or so? I completely understand if you feel that you are unable to complete the review and I will ask if someone else can finish it if you feel that would be best. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy IRL but will have a bit of time this week. Sounder Bruce 04:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead should not have citations for only half of the statement. Per WP:LEADCITE, it's all or nothing (and the latter is generally preferred)
The prize money does not seem to be an important enough detail to be included in the lead. I would suggest adding the goalscorer and MOTM instead.

Teams

The table has no citations and doesn't seem to provide anything that couldn't be turned into prose.
This section might work better if merged into the Background.
The note about recognition should be integrated into prose and the list portion is unnecessary.

Venue

The venue change should be explained with a reason (if found in a source)
No information about the bidding process?

Background

Some more information about the 1981 matchup would work well here.
"also losing both" drop the also
A comma is needed before "respectively"

Route to the final

The table serves no purpose.
The link to the Champions League should include the year of the competition
U-23 should not be abbreviated on its first use
"forced", "beaten", "heaviest" are not appropriate
Back-to-back paragraphs that begin with "Liverpool" and "Flamengo" aren't great for readability
"The Reds" should be explained as Liverpool's nickname before it is used as a standalone
CONCACAF should be used instead of North America (or if the continent really is needed, put it in parenthesis)
"as Rogelio...", this fragment is never finished, so replaced "as" with "through a goal by"
"of a volley" should be "off a volley"
Again, year needed before the competition due to the nature of the CWC
"started poorly" according to who? Is this really necessary? This paragraph should ideally be around the same length as Liverpool's semifinal summary.
"nearly conceded", "different posture", "higher defensive line", "go-ahead header"...language straight out of a match report, and not appropriate for a GA.
"advance" should be "advanced"

Match summary

No coverage of the starting lineups, referee, ceremonies, or kickoff conditions (as mentioned in the infobox)
"find shots" should be "found shots", but this sentence is a wash
"spell of possession", "several sights of goal", "dangerous shot", "tipped over the frame" are all inappropriate terms
"sixty percent possession" needs an "of"
Commas needed after mentioning the minutes
The foul being waived off after video review is not explained well; was this a referee decision?

Post-match

"win" is overused in the first sentence
Should follow up with their respective performances in continental competitions after the tournament
No mention of celebrations in Liverpool? This section is very sparse as it is, so anything to fill it out would be appreciated.

References

All non-English citations need translated titles
The Guardian should be italicized consistently
Ref 6 (BBC Sport) should use CS1 like the other citations
There's not a lot of diversity shown in the choice of sources. A retrospective or two from longer after the match would be ideal.

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I'm afraid this article is not ready to be a GA in its current state. I would suggest trying a peer review and nominating again once these issues have been fixed. Sounder Bruce 00:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]