This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
There are nine issues tags on this article: eight added by myself and one added in a previous review. I would say the previous reviewer (courtesy ping @BoyTheKingCanDance:) was generous, and from my perspective perhaps unsure, with the tag they added: unclear citation style.
I would interpret "unclear citation style" to be that the references are added inappropriately and that the poor state of the prose also means it is unclear if references are intended to source multiple single-sentence paragraphs or not. This can be resolved by a good copyedit from an editor far more competent than the creator, and IMHO is more a copyedit issue than a citation style one (reflist is used).
I added "factual accuracy disputed" because I have already had to correct the unsourced and notably incorrect claims in the lead that suggested the match set record attendances. With most of the article unsourced, and the lead containing claims that are not otherwise mentioned or found in sources, who knows what else the creator has made up.
I added "requires copyediting" because, well, you can't look at it and think otherwise.
I added three notability tags, in "may not meet: WP:NSPORT, WP:NEVENT, and WP:GNG". Relatedly, I also added "does not cite sources with WP:SIGCOV", "contains WP:OR", and "relies excessively on primary sources", and I will handle these six issues together:
Of the six sources currently in the article, three of them are the same PRIMARY match report and one is a PRIMARY match document.
The other two are external match reports, which are both WP:Routine coverage and do not denote notability.
In the content I removed for being clearly written by a fan without any indication of notability (or awareness of what is suitable for Wikipedia, natch), there were three references. One was a player's Instagram post to source a copyvio of the content of that Instagram post.
The other two were articles that could be useful if judged appropriately.
Of these, the OneFootball article is content recycling a viral social media post, so in this case it is not an RS.
The Guardian article was being treated as primary evidence for the WP article to say "widely praised", which it couldn't hold up alone if it was even doing so, which it isn't. The Guardian article did not say that "the match was widely praised" or any overview statement remotely like this - which is an unusual phrasing anyway? - and doesn't even mention any of the things the WP article creator wrote the match was supposedly widely praised for ("an historic day in women's football"; "level of crowd attendance"; "atmosphere in the ground"). The Guardian article is a tongue-in-cheek match report, and the only things it mentions close to any of those plaudits is that the match could have been a historic loss for Wolfsburg and that Arsenal were actually booed out of their own ground. Basically the opposite of the celebratory tone the WP article creator took. And nothing on attendance, which the lead would have you think is the be-all, end-all.
All in all, the article should probably be deleted for lack of notability and not even passable quality to hold off in case it can be salvaged. Kingsif (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
