Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group A

Permutations after Germany-Poland match

Before the Germany-Poland match, all four teams in the group could still have finished in any of the four final positions. After the Germany-Poland match, the range of permutations began to narrow. Poland could not finish in 1st place, and Germany could not finish in fourth place. All other permutations were still possible, though some required large changes in goal differences (examples given in brackets - other results may have led to the same rankings within the group, only one set of examples given for each case):

• Poland finish fourth (Costa Rica beat Poland)
• Poland finish third (Poland beat Costa Rica)
• Germany finish first (Germany beat Ecuador)
• Germany finish second (Ecuador beat Germany)
• Costa Rica finish third (Costa Rica drawn or win Poland)
• Costa Rica finish fourth (Poland beat Costa Rica)
• Ecuador finish first ( Ecuador beat Germany)
• Ecuador finish second (Germany beat Ecuador)

Examples of required goal differences to be added later. Carcharoth 13:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Group stage articles

I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead, I propose to remove some of the information at the 2006 FIFA World Cup page. I think, that the results at that page should be as on 2004 European Football Championship. When the WC is over, a statistic page also could be made, also as Euro 04. kalaha 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the group articles should be deleted. They provide much more information than the main article FIFA World Cup 2006. Don't you see that many other languange versions of wikipedia also have the group articles? --Neo-Jay 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But there is a link to the match report which provides the same info and the group standings is in the main article with scores and goal scorers. Kingjeff 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about those external links? They are not links to Wikipedia's articles! Almost all Wikipedia's articles have external links which provide relevant info. Do you argue to delete all those articles? --Neo-Jay 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But the match reports are very reliable since that's the official match report from FIFA. Kingjeff 22:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, you may also argue that Encyclopædia Britannica is very reliable. Why are you still staying with Wikipedia? Just leave here! --Neo-Jay 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this link will change. Kingjeff 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Show your proof. --Neo-Jay 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these pages provide useful information not available elsewhere on wiki and as such shouldn't be deleted. In fact, the wiki for Group E is the first page I check everyday for World Cup news. zipmon 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But the external match report is also a source to proof of the accuracy of the main article score whereas this page is just a copy of the external match report and main 2006 world cup page. Kingjeff 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all the information in wikipedia can be found somewhere else since Wikipedia has the No Original Research Policy. Wikipedia is the very place to include the information from External sources! --Neo-Jay 22:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't have any sources at all? Kingjeff 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that I said very clearly: the Wikipedia's articles of course have their external sources. You said that these articles should be deleted because we can also find information from somewhere else. If so, all the articles in Wikipedia should be deleted! --Neo-Jay 22:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have in mind that the external links keep changing. We surelly cannot only rely on the external links to know the group match information.--Neo-Jay 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No longer current sport

As all Group A games are done, the {{current sport}} template is no longer appropriate and should be removed.

Also, it is useful to have a brief sentence at the top, documenting the group play results in prose. --EngineerScotty 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 97198 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Group A of the 2006 FIFA World Cup featured the highest-scoring opening game in World Cup history since the competition began using a single match opening format? Source: 11v11.com FourFourTwo to cover following tournaments
  • Reviewed: Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR

5x expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 09:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Kosack: Good article. Just waiting on a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: Thanks for the review, I've added in my QPQ for this now. Kosack (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just dropping by after seeing this at DYK: over 20 of the 51 sources used here are either from BBC Sport or The Guardian. Would it be possible to get some more variety, especially using perspectives from the competing countries in Group A, to ensure a NPOV? SounderBruce 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group A/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Will review in the next few days. Haven't seen a well-written group summary like this before, but would love to see more in the future. SounderBruce 23:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Kosack has not edited since mid-February. Hopefully they are alright and might reappear, but if not, I'm willing to help get this article over the line if I can. I'll leave things for a bit after your initial review, but if there isn't a response from the nominator, give me a ping, and I'll take a look. It would be a shame for this fine work to be wasted. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   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):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

Lead

• An image of some sort would be nice; or perhaps a map of where the group matches were played?
• It might be helpful to mention what "the tournament" is in case a reader has wandered over from elsewhere and needs context; this would also help break up the short sentences here.
• "securing" should be replaced with something less sportsnews-y.

Done Cherrell410 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• The word "opening" or its variant "opener" is used three times in the third sentence; this could be cut down.

Done Cherrell410 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Link "injury time".

Done Cherrell410 (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• A transition between the final matchday and post-group results would be appreciated; perhaps "In the knockout stage, Ecuador were eliminated in the round of 16..."

Background

• "take charge of his side" is sportsnews-y.
• Briefly expand on what aspect(s) of the German team were controversial, as it isn't clear.
• "endured" could be replaced with a simple "had".
• "their qualification round" should just be "the final CONCACAF qualification round" or something similar; the current wording implies that CONCACAF has multiple final groups.
• "To provide an even number of teams for the playoff bracket": I'm not seeing how this ties into the group format.
• Can other previews be added to compare rankings?

Teams

• The table needs sources, as it is not merely summarizing the prose sections. In particular, the dates of qualification, finals/last appearance, and best performance columns.

Standings

• The two bulleted notes need citations.

Matches

• In general, I'm wondering why the stadium names in the match boxes are using the German names instead of the English ones provided on the main World Cup page.

Fixed Cherrell410 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• Citation 2 should mention that it's from the FIFA website on Yahoo's platform, rather than just Yahoo.
• Citation 17 should use a work parameter for FourFourTwo (which can also be linked).
• What makes historicalkits.co.uk a reliable source?
• I feel that there's heavy reliance on British media. Perhaps some more global coverage of the matches?

Will add more later. SounderBruce 06:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed a few of the minor errors, as football isn't my main sport and I don't have the knowledge to do anything big. Cherrell410 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Status query

SounderBruce, where does this review stand? Nominator Kosack hasn't edited for over five months, and Cherrell410 has done what they can. Harrias, can you address the issues that Cherrell410 hasn't been able to assist with? It would be great to get this review moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I was planning to finish the review after I saw Cherrell410's responses, but then I went on a road trip and got side-tracked by other projects. I do plan on continuing it soon. SounderBruce 02:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.