Talk:1964 Danish Cup final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible – not applicable.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright – not applicable.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

The article is still a long way from GA standard and my perception is that it has been nominated too soon before a substantial amount of proofreading and copyediting has been done. While I have marked my checklist above to provide guidance into the problem areas, I will use the actual GA criteria below to discuss the problems.

• GACR #1a. Prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

The article is not understandable to a broad audience (see GACR #3b below). There are issues with spelling and grammar which I will highlight in GACR #1b immediately below.

• GACR #1b. Complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction and list incorporation.

The layout of the article is fine. I have not seen any "words to watch" as such but I am recommending a thorough proofread. The fiction check is not applicable and there are no lists in the article.

The lead has problems which are symptomatic of the whole. I will summarise the lead problems here but attention to similar issues is needed throughout the whole narrative.

The predominant style of English is British (BE), as befits a British sport, but there are inconsistencies with some American spellings having crept in. Consistency is needed throughout so change all "-ize" endings to "-ise" (e.g., characterized to characterised; criticized to criticised). There is also an instance of "honor" which needs to be changed to "honour". Spelling and word usage throughout must be consistent in style of English.

Apostrophes must be used correctly. In the lead alone, there are two instances: The last three season's reigning Danish league champions (and the entire sentence should be split to make more sense); marked by the spectator's deafening antipathy towards the Esbjerg fB-players (the use of the hyphen is also grammatically incorrect).

Beware of contradictions such as only the third time in a competitive league game (this match, a cup final, wasn't a league game so presumably it was the third time ever).

When referring to a club or a team, there is no consistency in use of "its" or "their". In the lead, there is Odense KFUM secured its berth, whereas in an earlier sentence: For Odense KFUM, the match represented their first opportunity to win a title on a national level, having never reached the quarterfinals in previous seasons in the cup's current incarnation, while Esbjerg fB were participating in their third cup final.

Many constructions throughout cause confusion. In the lead, there is the cup's former incarnation. It says earlier that the 1963–64 Danish Cup was the 10th edition so do you mean in the previous nine seasons or are you referring to an earlier competition? If the latter, what was that competition called and when did it terminate? Problems like that cause failure of the understandability test in GACR #1a.

Greater care is needed with linkage. For example, association football needs to be linked in the opening sentence. A more subtle linkage problem occurs in the third paragraph where the [[Jutland]] [[peninsula]] should be changed to the [[Jutland|Jutland peninsula]]; that is a better use of linkage as Jutland is famously a peninsula.

Be careful of using terminology that would look askance to an English reader. One that stands out is "cup title". There are five instances of this in the whole article. It is normal to use "title" for the league championship only. For a team that has won the cup, it is normal to say "cup winners", "cup holders", etc.

Thorough proofreading and copyediting is needed to deal with minor spelling and grammatical issues. For example, in the lead there is: This was the first time that two sides had ever met (that the two sides).

• GACR #2a. Contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

The reflist is fine.

• GACR #2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.

There is no obvious reason to challenge any of the sources and so it may be assumed that they are reliable but I am reserving judgment. Certainly a lot of work has gone into research and many statements carry more than a single reference.

• GACR #2c. Contains no original research.

None is apparent.

• GACR #2d. No copyright violations nor plagiarism.

None are apparent.

• GACR #3a. Broad in its coverage and addresses the main aspects of the topic.

The scope of the article has effectively been defined by the layout and section headings. I'm satisfied that the content is within scope,

• GACR #3b. Stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

The route, pre-match, match and post-match sections all delve into far too much detail and read for the most part like newspaper reports. This has badly affected the readability of the article and there is an overlap here with test #1a above which requires the coverage to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience. The article fails to achieve this because it would not be understandable to people who lack a good knowledge of football. A full revision of the content is needed after a decision is made about the essential points to be covered. A clue to the problem is the readable prose size of 33 kB which is far too high for a match report.

I would recommend a study of other match review articles in the GA list to see how they have handled these topics. For example, as this match was controversial, you could refer to 1974 FA Charity Shield, an even more controversial match in England which is easily handled in only 12kB with a four-paragraph match summary. To see how an FA Cup final is treated, see 1978 FA Cup Final which was promoted only recently with just 13 kB; this has a single paragraph, albeit a lengthy one, providing the match summary.

• GACR #4. Neutral.

I have not seen anything that strikes me as POV, assuming all sources are reliable and have been used correctly, so it passes the neutrality test.

• GACR #5. Stable.

The article is stable and passes this test.

• GACR #6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio.

Apart from the schematic diagram of the line-ups, which is your own work, there are no images and so this test is not really applicable.

Result

There is too much to be done to justify placing the article on hold for seven days and so the result of this review is a fail . No Great Shaker (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to do this review. Let me see if I can fix the issues. Froztbyte (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)