Talk:2021 AFL Grand Final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 (talk · contribs) 05:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"played with a crowd" ===>>> "played with spectators" (unless you definitely mean "a lot of spectators", instead of just "any spectators")
Can you adding where they finished on the ladder? And that both teams were top two for most of the season.
Can you add a bit about the progression of the game? The final score makes it look like a blowout, but the game was fairly close until near the end of the third quarter?

all but point 3 are handled; seeking opinion on new intro (perhaps you'd pare it down? Not sure). As for point 3, seeking a second opinion on this... Or perhaps specific pointers where it can be improved (and not just from an article).

Background

I don't there should be a dash in "Host-selection".
"but case numbers" ===>>> "and case numbers" (not a contradiction)
"in front of a crowd" ===>>> "in front of spectators"
"as [add "the"] standby venue"
"originally fixtured date" <<<=== Is this correct? Not "original fixture date"?
and four additional AFLW matches <<<=== remove "and" (it's not the last clause)
Western Australia had no spectator restrictions on major events at outdoor stadiums, as well as the strictest entry quarantine restrictions on interstate travellers ===>>> "the strictest entry quarantine restrictions on interstate travellers, but no spectator restrictions on major events at outdoor stadiums"
"or non-critical media or administrators" ===>>> "non-critical media and administrators"
Maybe add something on Nathan Jones, even if he hadn't been in the lineup for awhile: Jones article
Get rid of "Main article: 2021 Western Bulldogs season". (You could just link it in "much of their season" instead)
"decider" is too informal
Two of these paragraphs are missing citations at the end.
Maybe add a bit about the key players on both teams?

I think originally fixtured date is fine here. Clarifies that it was talking about the date of the game, not when the fixture was made. Not sure on what to do instead of "decider"; "playoff" sounds too American. What citations specifically are missing?

"Maybe add a bit about the key players on both teams?" Suggestions that aren't covered within the "best" section? I'm going to leave this as is for now. Once we have this section fixed, we can look at doing the rest. Cheers.

Teams

Okay.

Entertainment

"Noongar man" <<<=== Is this correct? I would think it should say his occupation (e.g. he is some type of performer or musician?) instead of just "man"?

Match

You need to cite an "As it happened" article. Here are two by The Guardian and The Age.
Except in the last quarter where there were a ton of goals and it was very one-sided, you might as well mention every goal. Not all of them have to have a lot of detail or they could be mentioned "as a set of several", but a few things seem skipped over.
In particular, the second goal by Melbourne and the first by the Bulldogs seem missing.
A fumble by the Bulldogs' Bailey Williams in Melbourne's forward half allowed Charlie Spargo to pick up the ball and score a goal <<<=== I watched the highlights. I don't think this is what happened.
"and give another goal" ===>>> "to set up another goal"
"including two goals from Marcus Bontempelli" <<<=== put something like this before mentioning half time? (The sentence seems out of order.)
"firming up his Norm Smith Medal chances in the process" <<<=== this isn't a good way to say it. He was just the favorite at the time. It didn't mean he had a good chance (in particular if they didn't win).
"The Bulldogs continued to score quickly, Jason Johannisen took an impressive mark next to the goal posts resulting in a goal and extending their lead to 19 points." <<<=== Split this into two sentences.
Add the time left when Melbourne first took back the lead.
Melbourne ran away with the win, kicking nine goals in the final quarter compared to the Bulldogs, with just one. <<<=== Fix the grammar.
"had finally been broken" ===>>> "had ended"
"to take the record with 55." ===>>> "with the longest drought at 55 years."
Find better citations for this sentence "The television broadcast showed reactions from many interstate Melbourne supporters...". Instagram, Twitter, Reddit shouldn't be used in most cases.
"Coach" shouldn't be capitalized
"but, the Demons had six more free kicks (19–13); however" <<<=== move the but fragment after the however, and get rid of the word "but"
Throughout the 2021 finals series, Melbourne had more than doubled their opponents' scores: 53.30 (358) vs. 25.18 (168) <<<=== I think it's better to say they more than doubled their opponents' scores in each match. That's a stronger statement.
possession tally ===>>> disposal tally
"Due to Optus Stadium's extensive corporate facilities" <<<=== I'm not sure this is the right way to say something like this? It sounds like advertising, and also seems like it neglects other factors.
Can you compare the A$40 million to Grand Finals in other years?

Scoreboard

If it is possible, can you darken the "zero line" in the background so that it's clearer who is leading at each point?

Media

"exclusively in Australia" <<<=== It sounds like they only broadcast the match in Australia, but it should be they were the only ones to broadcast the match in Australia.
Missing a citation for 2005.
Split the last sentence into one for BT and one for Brayshaw.

Overall

No all caps in the references unless it's an abbreviation. (e.g. AFL, TV are fine, but "SEVEN ANNOUNCES ITS FULL COVERAGE OF THE AFL GRAND FINAL" is not)
The biggest thing that needs work is the write-up of the match summary. Some parts seem incomplete, and it's also the section that needs the most improvement with grammar.

Placing on hold. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Sportsfan77777, Electricmaster, what is the status of this nomination? As far as I can see, Electricmaster did a couple of minor edits to the article a few hours after the review was posted and placed on hold, and nothing in the four weeks since. If there isn't progress soon, perhaps the nomination should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to continue work chipping away at this article. I'm using an iterative approach as to not overwhelm either Sportsfan77777 or myself. Cheers. Electricmaster (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this nomination. The edits made since the review don't seem to be making much progress towards good article status. And in general, handling the review one part at a time and then waiting for comments before proceeding to another part isn't efficient enough, especially given the current state of the article. Beyond addressing the points above, I would also suggest looking at other example GAs (e.g. the AFL Women's Grand Finals that are GAs) before considering a renomination. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]