Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/GA2

Latest comment: 5 months ago by Zwerg Nase in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Lead

edit
  • Every information in the lead should also be part of the article itself. I would therefore suggest to include the stat on highest amount of goals down in the statistics section. Then also move the source there, since the source is then not needed in the lead.

Scope

edit
  • The infobox includes number of attendance, but without a source. I suggest adding a section in the article body on ticketing and attendance, then source the numbers there.
    • So I can't say I agree with this, but this is simply an addition of the individual attendances from each of the matches (you can see the amounts in the infobox). There's an argument that WP:CALC comes into play, but I'm not a fan of adding something without any cites (most sources talk about the 3 million or so that attended the world cup, but not necessarily the matches. I'd be hesitant to add to the body without an overall cite. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I see, I guess that works. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Overview

edit

Host selection

edit

Venues

edit

Teams

edit
  • "France, the reigning World Cup champions also went through qualifying stages as normal." This sentence only makes sense if it is explained that defending champions used to not have to qualify. Maybe in a footnote?
  • Could reasons be given why Saint Lucia, Samoa, and American Samoa withdrew?
  • "As a result, the 2022 tournament was the first World Cup in which none of the teams that earned a spot through qualification were making their debut. The Netherlands, Ecuador, Ghana, Cameroon, and the United States returned to the tournament after missing the 2018 tournament." Both of these statements are unsourced.
  • "who decided not to replace Karim Benzema after he sustained an injury" - my French is not great, but I think the French source does not explicitly state this.
  • Footnotes on teams not determined at the time of the draw should include a source, #130 should suffice, though I would love to see a more explicit source here, since the FIFA source does not clearly state which teams have not been determined yet.

Officiating

edit
  • I am not in love with the tweet (or is it an X not?) as a source. I am sure a better source can be found for this.

Group stage

edit

Group A

edit
  • "Many Qatar natives were seen leaving the game before the end, with ESPN reporting that two-thirds of the attendance had left." Not sure if this is really relevant, maybe under controversies (see below later once I get to that part)

Group B

edit

Group C

edit

Group E

edit

Group F

edit
  • "Belgium manager Roberto Martínez confirmed after the game that he believed Canada to have been the better team." - This sentence can be scrapped, not really relevant, the other games also do not state who might have been the better team, which is pure speculation anyway.
  • "The match sparked riots in Belgium, with residents fires and fireworks being set off." - residents fires? What is that?

Group G

edit
Maybe suffered? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "He was later sent off for removing his shirt in celebrating the goal." - This needs context, explain why players can be sent off for this.
    • Yellow cards are given to players for removing the shirt (this has been a worldwide rule for almost 20 years now). He was already on a yellow card. I have added this, but I don't want to unnecessarily explain that you can get a yellow for this behaviour as it would probably bloat the prose. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think it's better that way since these articles should be written in a way that people not familiar with the subject matter can understand them.Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "The game's first goal appeared to have been headed in by Ronaldo, but the ball just missed his head." - Also not that relevant.
  • "Several Uruguay players left the pitch after the game surrounding the referees and followed them off the pitch." - could also do with some context, controversial non-given penalty late on?

Knockout stage

edit
  • "their biggest win margin in the 2022 tournament, reaching their sixth final" - both statements are not backed up by the source given.
  • "This marked their third World Cup win and their first since 1986. It also marked the first time that a South American team won the World Cup in 20 years and as Copa América champions." - unsourced!
    • Removed - sourced part.

Statistics

edit

Awards

edit

Marketing

edit
  • "FanSided" seems like a dodgy source at best to me.
  • "coloured borders "parallels"" - what is a parallel??
  • Broadcasting: Why is Fox Sports in the US singled out for information about how their coverage was received? I am sure these discussions happened in other countries (definitely here in Germany), so why are they not covered? Either include as much as possible or leave it out entirely. I see no reason to single out the US, a nation not even that much into football.
  • Broadcasting: Same with the licensing and the viewership numbers? Why is only the US covered here??

Symbols

edit

Controversies

edit
I think that would be wise, considering the next earlier mention of a time is two paragraphs before, so it's not really clear. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hahaha, didn't even catch that one! :D With how many S do you spell innocent? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
True, but the audience protests were about that as well, I would argue that players protesting is more relevant to the World Cup than spectators doing the same. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Jewish: again, a problem here with information appearing multiple times, like the fact about kosher food. Please merge into one.

Sources

edit

Will do some more spotchecks later, but for now:

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking a look at such a long and in depth article Zwerg Nase. I have replied to the above, and I'm just going through the sources to fix up the ones that aren't quite finished. Let me know if there is more I need to look at. :) Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Did you have anything more for me Zwerg Nase? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Zwerg Nase - not to chase, but was there anything more? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry, was way more busy over the past week than I thought I would be. I am happy with the prose now, still some minor concerns about the sources though. Some are missing parameters such as release date, retrieval date, author (where available). I don't think there are many, I've noticed #4, #192, maybe you could do a quick scan if you find any others? Then I would be happy to promote. Good work so far! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure. I don't mind taking a look - fair warning, I edit almost exclusively on mobile now, so scrutinising sources for formatting (especially on large sized articles) can be troublesome. I will need to find some time with a PC to make these changes. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have been away with some personal stuff - I can't remember where we got with this review, did we come to a conclusion Zwerg Nase? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lee Vilenski @Zwerg Nase I'm just going through the oldest GANs and found this one. It sounds like it's very close to being wrapped up and is just waiting for some minor fixes on some references. Zwerg, if I may be so bold, if Lee is having technical issues editing this and you know what you're looking for, perhaps you could just make the changes yourself so this can get moved along? RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Zwerg Nase - any ideas if there was anything else you needed from me? I've lost track as to what is required. I think we are all but there. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry, had little time to check Wikipedia the last couple of weeks. Sources are still my issue here. 305 is missing publisher and date, 306 is missing publisher and retrieval date as well as title translation, 312 is missing retrieval date, 317 "Eurosport" should be capitalized and title given in French with translation, 402 and 403 are questionable since it's YouTube videos (maybe find a better source here?), 406 missing retrieval date. Those are all I can find right now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cool, should be done. I've fixed 305, 306, 317 and removed 406 (metro is unreliable). One of the YouTube videos is a direct interview with a reliable source, which should be fine, the other is from Sky News, an RS. It being in video form is irrelevant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Zwerg Nase, I see this is still outstanding, are you ready to pass this? -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Asilvering: Looks good now, passing :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply