Talk:Football in the Philippines/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Copying over review from GA1:

GA1

Review from GA1 Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Unless there is a form of the English language with which I am unfamiliar in which this article is written, it seems to be littered with run-ons and rather odd phraseology; some is simply awkward, others are downright incorrect. For example, Currently, there has been four projects accepted by FIFA to build and upgrade football facilities in the Philippines. The first one was approved on August 2000, which FIFA built six technical centers namely in Iloilo, Laguna, Negros Occidental, Cagayan de Oro, Zamboanga and Agusan del Sur with a total budget of ₱458,046. First off, don't use currently, as that is conducive to the article growing out of date. Second, "The first one was approved on August 2000, which FIFA ..."; there needs to be a was in there, i.e. The first one, which was approved on ___ August 2000 (otherwise needs to be in August 2000), authorized FIFA to build six technical centers in (get rid of namely) Iloilo, Laguna .... There are grammar errors like this throughout the early sections, and tense issues all over the place (i.e. "And the last project, FIFA built a technical center in Bukidnon which includes a natural grass pitch, dormitories, changing rooms, lecture rooms and offices" and "On 18 October 2011, Real Madrid opened a youth sports academy to 70 poor children with an age under 14 years benefited to train football in Mindanao.[13] Last 15 May 2012, an English club Chelsea launches a football school in the country. The school is operated by Phil Younghusband and James Younghusband which are both brothers and former members of Chelsea's Reserves and Youth Team." 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Overuse of "currently", in both lead and body, includes "unfortunately", which editorializes the article 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. OK here. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The sources are there ... 2c. it contains no original research. good here. 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Not being an expert and not finding similar GAs against which to review this article, I am going to go out on a limb and say yes. 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). This seems pretty good. 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Not really, includes words such as "unfortunately" that editorialize the article. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. check. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The image of Paulino Alcantara, while it looks old, does not have a definite publication date, either on the file page or on the website from which it originated, as near as I can tell, so I cannot definitively state it is in the public domain. Do you have any information on its publication status? 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. OK. 7. Overall assessment. Unfortunately, right now, I am going to have to fail this article, though I will leave this open in case you can find someone to help (or can fix all of the issues). There are two big issues. The first is that the article needs a thorough copyedit; it is hard to discern meaning in some places. I will stipulate that I am an American, and thus am most familiar with American English, however by and large, issues in this article seem to be universal grammar issues. Second, I am a little concerned with some close paraphrasing. For example, the article reads, "Chelsea launches a football school in the country." An online source reads, "Chelsea FC formally launches soccer school in the Philippines". After spotting that close paraphrasing, I ran it through an online plagiarism checker, and not much turned up, so hopefully that is a sporadic instance, but just be careful of that. For now, I am going to put the article on hold. If you can get a copyedit, I will finish out the review with some questions that popped into my head while reading as well as a little more critique. The bottom line, though, is that right now, the article has major grammar issues. I would do the copyedit myself, but I am not comfortable copyediting British English (I assume this is written in that). Let me know if you need any help. Go Phightins! 03:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Comments from GA1 Early years What does the Manila Bay incursion have to do with the development of the sport? I assume something, but we need to know why - right now, it is a rather random insertion. Because of the American's incursion, they continued the colonization in PHI, and introduced to us basketball. What if they didn't invade the Spaniards? Maybe soccer is already a popular sport here. I am concerned with the close paraphrasing in the China reference. Article: Also some Filipinos that had been sent to college in Hong Kong and China, returned home and taught their friends a little bit about the game of soccer Source: Some boys that had been sent to college in Hong Kong, China, returned home and taught their friends a little bit about the fine game of soccer or association football. I noticed some close paraphrasing earlier, and am hoping I found isolated incidents, not patterns. You may want to give W.H. Taft's title (POTUS) Added While I know what a hat trick is, not all readers will, as it is a jargony term. Please either explain, link, or replace. Added a link, and a note. In 1916, he continued his studies in medicine and played football for a local team Bohemian Sporting Club, there he helped the club to win two Philippine Championships in 1917 and 1918. This is a run-on sentence - either split into two, or split the clauses with a semicolon. Done However, all of that would change when the Americans marked the birth of basketball in the country. All of what would change? The previous paragraph talks about Alcantara's studies of medicine; I don't think that's what changed. Fixed Why were Americans in the Philippines? Added a short (in a nutshell) description at the first paragraph. FairyTailRocks (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Two surveys was conducted in parts of Metro Manila in 2012, the first one that basketball is the most watched sport at 74.4% meanwhile football was placed fourth at 17.9%.[note 1] On the second survey, basketball was the most played sport during leisure time at 9.6% than football.[note 2][7] There are several grammar issues in this sentence. I still think a copy-edit from the guild of copy editors is necessary. For now, I am going to stop here, and again suggest that another set of eyes copyedit the article. The Guild of Copy Editors does a great job with this. Right now, the prose is of insufficient quality for the article to achieve GA status. I'll make a deal - I will close this nomination now if you request a copyedit from a third party (either GOCE or another editor, but another set of eyes is needed), and once you get a copyedit, nominate the article again, ping me, and I will review Talk:Football in the Philippines/GA2. Right now, I just don't see the article meeting the criteria. Go Phightins! 22:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Review for GA2

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Better, but still some issues, as described below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Improved here, although lead could use a little more on modern day football, as mentioned below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Several issues noted below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No direct quotes, however a few items still need inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Cannot be sure until reliable sources are located for some of what is below.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I believe so.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Frankly, in some places, more detail and explanation would be warranted, as noted below.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It does seem to be written neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Same concern as mentioned above in GA1 still stands regarding the photo in the early years section.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	They are relevant - perhaps an additional image, if it is available, could be added, regarding geographic locations of teams modern day, but don't worry about that.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not yet, but status is attainable. Go Phightins! 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments for GA2

Early years

• First paragraph needs a citation, but does provide necessary context.
• Who won the championship in 1921?
• Did Alcantara play extensively in the Philippines? Not mentioned.
• Change "would decrease" to "decreased" - no need for present.
• he played football for a local team Bohemian Sporting Club, where he helped the club win two Philippine Championships in 1917 and 1918 to he played football for a local team, the Bohemian Sporting Club, whom he helped win two Philippine ... (Bohemian Sporting Club is an entity, not a place, and thus "where" should not be used
• The Philippine basketball team saw early success in 1936 when they first appeared at the Summer Olympics and in the inaugural Asian Games, where they won gold. seems unnecessary and off-topic.

Y Finished all of them.

Revival

Help from foreign countries and clubs

• with a total budget of ₱ 458,046 - can we get a conversion to Euros, US Dollars, or some more known currency than that of the Philippines please?
• Am I completely missing the introduction of the abbreviation PFF? I assume it means Philippine Football Federation, however do not see that in the article. I could be mistaken though.
• former Rwanda U-17 coach Michael Weiß as coach of the Philippine national team, popularly referred to as the "Azkals," after Dan Palami's three-day visit in Frankfurt; who or what is "popularly referred to as the "Azkals" - the coach or the team? Ambiguous.
• The DFB gave the Philippine Football Federation a grant of € 500,000 Now we are switching currencies. Either everything needs to be in Philippine with conversions to euros (use Template:Convert), or vice versa, but no context for comparison as it stands.
• Soon after it's establishment, they built an artificial grass football field named as Gatorade-Chelsea Blue Pitch in Ayala Alabang. to Soon after its establishment ...
• It was begun on 17 April and ended on 21 April 2013 to It began on ...

Development of international and local competitions

• The first and only champion of the league was Philippine Army, which was cancelled after the season ended to The first and only champion of the league, which was cancelled at the season's conclusion, was the Philippine Army
• signing of a ₱150 million (~$3.4 million) and now American dollars come into the picture; we need continuity here please
• The United Football League is currently the de facto top tier national league in the country. Link de facto please. Also, I assume this is supported by the citation at the end of the paragraph, but an inline citation at the conclusion of the sentence might even be better.
• The Philippine Football Federation has not been able to organize a national tournament since 2007, when they staged the PFF Centennial Men's Open Championship. Why have they not been able to do so?
• Since 2012, the Chinese Taipei Football Association (CTFA) begged off from staging the third annual Long Teng Cup and requested the PFF host it. The Philippine team has been a regular participant since its inception. The PFF renamed the tournament the Paulino Alcántara Cup,[33] then renamed it once again to the Paulino Alcántara Peace Cup. The tournament was eventually renamed the Philippine Peace Cup because the Philippine Sports Commission, which operates the Rizal Memorial Stadium were the tournament was held, has a rule against events named after an individual.[34] The tournament takes place in September to celebrate Peace Month in the Philippines. This paragraph is a major problem. First, the phraseology "begged off" is too informal, vague, and inflammatory. Why did they do so, who says that they "begged off". Also, we need a citation to support The tournament takes place in September to celebrate Peace Month in the Philippines. And one typo I noticed - which operates the Rizal Memorial Stadium were the tournament was held to which operates the Rizal Memorial Stadium where the tournament was held

Y Done. :)

National team success

• Why focus solely on their successes? What happened during the 99-year lull?

United Football League

• Can we link the league page as a main article or see also please?
• In the 2014 season, the United Football League is divided into two divisions, with nine teams in Division I and 12 teams in Division II. What is the basis for teams being in one of the divisions? Performance? Size?
• Second paragraph remains unsourced.

Qualification for men's Asian competitions

• Should this be a level-three (===) subsection of the prior section?

National teams

• Citations needed

Comment

should each of the three aforementioned sections be coalesced into a cohesive section describing football in the Philippines today? Frankly, the stadiums section would fit there to.

Notes

• Do we have citations for these?

Y Added.

Lead

• I always save my review of the lead until after reading the article, and while the first two paragraphs are solid, the last one does not succinctly and comprehensively encompass the modern-day stuff, and as such, does not summarize the article adequately.

Y Added more paragraphs.

References

• Please make sure each of the references includes as many of the following as possible:

• Publisher (appears to be in some, but not all)
• Work (if applicable - for most of the references, it is applicable, yet not utilized)
• Date of publication (sometimes it cannot be found, but just double check)

Doubled check all of it. And there is no problem with the refs. FairyTailRocks (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I will assume good faith that these are reliable sources ... I lack the expertise in this type of article to evaluate some of them. Perhaps I can find another editor to corroborate their reliability. Go Phightins! 18:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Upon re-reading the article per my previous suggestions, it looks good, however, I will do one final check against the GA criteria.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Concerned by close paraphrasing, still: "to tour schools across the country as part of smart's jump in campus roadshow" appears verbatim as it does in this press release. You may use "quotes" to attribute stuff like that, however you can't just throw stuff in verbatim from other sources. I am encouraged, however, by this report, which finds no copyright violations. Please just be careful about that.

   Y Fixed the sentenced, to tour schools across the country as part of Smart’s Jump In campus roadshow. to to visit schools across the country as part of Smart's program. and sure I will keep that in mind.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I think we are OK here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   OK here; I am ambivalent on the recent edit by a user with something about bananas in his user name that removed the table regarding national team performance; not a hill on which I am willing to die.

   Left a note.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yup.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Good.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Just the one image; are there any free ones of the national team available?

   The image of Paulino Alcantara was possibly taken in the 1910s. I am looking for more pictures about the Azkals. Thank you! FairyTailRocks (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall: Double check for close paraphrasing, and we have a GA.

   Pass/Fail:

Comment

I was surprised to see earwig's so-called "Copyvio detector" mentioned in a GA review, much less that its failure to find anything was considered an encouraging sign. That tool has been pulled from DYK because it gives a misleading sense of security: it is not at all comprehensive in its web search, and doesn't do any checking at all on the actual sources included in the article. I hope a spotcheck on those sources using the Duplication detector has been done, since it actually checks text in the article against text in sources. (It notes that an eight-word string, "schools across the country as part of Smart's", is still copied. That's a bit much; there are ways to rewrite this to avoid such close paraphrasing.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Though I was unaware of the "Copyvio detector"'s unreliability, which I had previously seen used/referenced, I already had run a few Duplication Detector reports, but per your suggestion, ran about 8 more, and they came up predominantly negative. Obviously, there was some nomenclature that, because of the nature of the article, has to be similar, but even those instances were few and far between. I found nothing blatant, and am comfortable passing the article at this point. That said, BlueMoonset, thank you for your concern and bringing up the Copyvio Detector's unreliability. I will avoid it in the future. Go Phightins! 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)