Talk:1999 FIFA Women's World Cup

crowd numbers

Disregard

This FIFA link states that attendance was only 660,000, not the 1.9 million mentioned in the article

https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/y=2007/m=3/news=fifa-women-world-cup-usa-1999-502003.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.2.82 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 FIFA Women's World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 10:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one up, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Initial review

Lead

• Not a deal breaker but, "at the senior level" is probably unnecessary when comparing against other World Cup articles, in particular the only current FA 1930 FIFA World Cup.
  • Removed.
• "The final match", perhaps a bit nitpicky but I would say it would be commonly referred to as simply the final.
  • Done.
• Not relevant for the GAN, just a minor observation, but if FA is the eventual target the lead could perhaps do with fleshing out slightly for an article with over 30kb of prose. Golden Shoe winners and other player awards could be a good inclusion.
  • I'll work on expanding it a little later.

Host selection

• Men's uses lower case when referring to the 1994 World Cup but upper case for the 2002 edition. Given men's isn't part of the official name lower case would probably suffice.
  • Fixed.

Venues

• "4 July semi-final in Palo Alto, California", seems like an odd way to start a sentence. Plus why is only one of the semi-finals mentioned when the semi-finals section further on states both games were double headers.
  • The first word got chopped off in an earlier edit. Rewrote the sentence to add New England.
• The sentence also states Palo Alto California but the semi-finals section has Stanford and Foxborough as the locations?
  • Stanford's Stadium is in a weird spot between Palo Alto and Stanford (the community/campus). I have removed it entirely, since it's not as relevant here.
• "1994 Men's World Cup", drop men's to lower case if we're agreeing on that from earlier.
  • Fixed.
• Link 1984 Olympics to the relevant page.
  • Done.
• Civic Stadium is linked twice in two sentences in the first paragraph.
  • Fixed.
• "The warm-up match at Civic, between the United States and Canada on June 6", the rest of the article uses dmy date format apart from this sentence.
  • This was added by another editor and rewritten.

Draw

• Spartan Stadium and San Jose, California are both linked in the previous section. Don't think there's a need to repeat the link here.
  • Unlinked.
• Is FIFA Women's World Stars likely to need an article with the red link? I'm assuming it was just a version of the World XI?
  • Looks like FIFA groups them together, so I'll pipe it and add this document to the World XI entry.

Group B

• "after Prinz was tackled in the box", perhaps fouled would be more appropriate seems as it resulted in a penalty being given?
  • Agreed and fixed.

Group C

• Own goal is already linked in the Group A section.
  • Fixed.

Group D

• "last-place Australia", last-place in what?
  • Added 1995 to that.

Knockout stage

• "If the score remains tied", should this use past tense instead (remained)?
  • Fixed.

References

• As I'm outside the US, I'm unable to access any LA Times material through the site so I'll AGF on those given that the ones accessed via Newspapers.com check out.
  • Unfortunately there's no bypass for European readers, and the website just changed the URL scheme of the older articles, so no WayBack Machine entries yet.

A nice article, detailed, well written and thoroughly sourced. A few minor issues above to deal with so placed on hold for those to be addressed. Kosack (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for getting this done quickly. I'll work on expanding the lead over the next day or so, but I have made all the other changes you have suggested. SounderBruce 02:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: No problem, nice work on this. I'm happy the article comfortably meets the relevant GA criteria and all of the issues raised above have been addressed. I'll keep an eye out at FA for this as well. Promoting. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Olympic qualifying

I've restored and merged the section regarding Olympic qualifying, as the details on how teams qualified for an important event such as the Olympics should be prominent. This uses a similar style to 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Qualified UEFA teams for Summer Olympics, which explains the format of UEFA qualifying via the Women's World Cup. Many other articles also use this qualification table format, which provides a useful qualification overview, such as 2018 Copa América Femenina#Qualification for international tournaments, 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Qualified teams, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)#Qualified teams, and UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Qualified teams. The qualifying tiebreakers are also worth mentioning, similar to explanations on other tournament articles such as 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Tiebreakers, 2018 FIFA World Cup#Tiebreakers and Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament#Group stage. I would disagree with NOTSTATS being mentioned here, the table is included to show how the losers are specifically ranked to determine the participants. Similarly, group standings in tournaments could also be explained only in prose, though the common table format remains important in the visual representation of the ranking. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the purpose of this article is for the 1999 World Cup, I would not like to see so much space devoted to a separate tournament. The tables and tiebreakers could easily fit in the 2000 Olympics entry (which has a very short Qualification section) but look out of place here. It's useful information, but serves to diminish the main focus of this entry and was previously mentioned in the prose without overwhelming the reader. As such, I'm going to revert back to the status quo. SounderBruce 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: It's not as though this is taking an extraordinary amount of space in the article, it's a quick overview at the bottom of the page. Just as the section 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup#Qualification gives a brief overview of the qualifying while a bigger picture is located at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification, the section Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament#Qualification is also meant to give a brief overview. However, unlike the 2008 tournament, which can have a corresponding qualification article split by confederation, an article such as "Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's qualification" would make no sense, as its scope would be identical to the "1999 FIFA Women's World Cup" article. So, logically this article is where further details should be given regarding the qualification system which FIFA enacted. The Olympics are a major tournament, and readers would expect to have a decent explanation on how the World Cup acted as qualifying and which teams advanced, just as was done at 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Qualified UEFA teams for Summer Olympics. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

To keep Olympics-only content on this entry would diminish the significance of the Women's World Cup and is potentially problematic when it comes to maintaining quality. There is already a prose explanation that comes up at an appropriate time, and could be moved repeated with a small mention in the aftermath section, but it is overbearing when given tables that bore the reader. The "previous appearances" table is pointless for readers of this article and absolutely should stay on the Olympics entry. SounderBruce 04:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit to host city map

I made this edit to the host city/venue map, because as it is, there's an inconsistency between way the cities are listed in the table and the map, but it was reverted by SportingFlyer. Now, there's a debate to be had over whether host city name (i.e. "San Francisco" and "Los Angeles") or the stadium location (i.e. "Stanford, California" and "Pasadena, California") should be more prominent. But based on the way FIFA has listed the venues in its documents and how the media reports World Cup matches, the principles of WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME tell me host city names should be more prominent than the municipalities where the stadiums are located. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Based on a contemporary source search (and even just a normal Google search) the media reports discuss games, say the final, as being played in Pasadena, Calif., not Los Angeles. Neither WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME support this change either here or on the 1994 FIFA World Cup that you're trying to change. There is a discrepancy because FIFA does uses the name of the metro area, but nobody else seems to. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Since this potentially impacts multiple articles, I have started an RfC at the WikiProject Football talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

at DYK... cfi

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1999 FIFA Women's World Cup

• ... that CEO Marla Messing submitted the business plan for the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup (logo pictured) two days before the birth of her first child? "Messing turned in her business plan for the World Cup two days before giving birth to daughter Natalie"
  • ALT1:... that ...(have a go)?

• Reviewed: * QPQ = Coral Reef Restoration
• Comment: moved from AfC by Innisfree987

Created by JaneBuckingham (talk), Spratt70 (talk), and Innisfree987 (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC).

• Date, length and hook all OK. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Picture licence is fine (despite the format tag but that's just a suggestion). Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)