Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Group B/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Unknown Temptation (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there, I'm ready for my first GA review (I notice you have done many more!). Thankfully as this event is in living memory, it will not be too hard to evaluate. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Not sure if this is about prose or factuality, but the phrasing "Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, the nation's highest diplomat in Qatar" could be confusing. It suggests Blinken is like an ambassador or consul to Qatar, but I think it's trying to say he was the highest person on the United States presidential line of succession to be at the World Cup? I could not find the words "highest" or "senior" in the text. I think it's just safe enough to say Blinken's office, and anyone wanting more details can follow the link? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): Source 1 [1] is being used for the statements that the draw took place on 1 April and that teams were drawn from pots that were sorted by ranking. I can't see this in the source? However, the details are already in source 14 in the article if you could copy over the reference [2] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 38 [3] I can't find any mention of Peru, 1978, or worst? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
"The United States team outplayed Wales in the first half, but in the second half Wales outshone them, being tactically better, particularly after introducing substitute Kieffer Moore". This isn't completely different to what the source says, but it's not exactly to the source either. There is no mention of "tactics" in the source, but this passage "It was a tale of two halves and Wales manager Rob Page made the key change at half-time when he replaced the ineffective Dan James with the taller Kieffer Moore, who was exactly what the side had been missing in the opening period." almost reflects the article text. But definitely, the source verifies the the US dominated the first half and the Welsh the second. Perhaps everything can stay except the clause about being tactically better Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source would be recommended for the note about a sixth substitution due to concussion Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 49 does not verify that it was Iran's first win over a European nation at the World Cup. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only now noticed, the compromise "no discrimination" armband is mentioned in the caption and in the sources, but not in the text. That could be helpful Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (citations to reliable sources):
All sources are reliable. The subject does not include major controversies that would require more authoritative sourcing than journalism. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

c. (OR):
Not an issue. Match reports are brief and factual and align with what the sources were saying. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
The succinct match reports mean that they do not closely resemble the sources. Quotations are brief and to the point. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):
Could there be something added early on about manager/player reactions to the draw? We already have what pundits thought of it. Given that three of these countries speak the same language and are entwined in football, there would have been a lot said and it would set the scene of how each country was going into it. But it's OK if you don't want to stuff the page with quotations. There's also something more to be said about the fourth of those teams, Iran. Manager Queiroz supported player protests, then after Iran lost, he called protesters "not welcome". He took issue with the BBC for asking political questions in press conferences, [4], which the Guardian called "extraordinary". I understand if you don't want to swell the page with non-football, but as the lead and earlier sections mention the geopolitical aspect of the group, it's not too farfetched to include it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Match reports are written in a way that reflects the sources. The non-football elements of this group are mentioned in a factual matter that is not taking sides; all opinions are clearly attributed to relevant figures. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Naturally there were a lot of edits in November and December and dispute between editors on how exactly to sum up six 90-minute episodes in an encylopedic way. The page is stable since then. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
Photographs come from an Iranian press agency which licences its images for such use. There are also self-made diagrams. No concerns. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Captions are fine. Kane image is relevant to the armband discussion. The Wales Iran caption is brief, but that's fine, it's not crying out to have the names of the players. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)