Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group A/GA1

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.

---

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

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.