Talk:El Salvador national football team/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: My76Strat (talk · contribs · count) 06:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Opining statement

I an beginning the review of this nomination. Over the coming days, I will evaluate this nomination against Wikipedia's good article criteria. All interested participants are invited to provide their constructive input. While any editor is welcome, to indent and append under, any specific bullet where they have reason, please only initiate comments in the section appropriate to your level of involvement. — My76Strat (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

After my initial read of this article, I find it is well written, and has the appearance of a good nomination for "GA" assessment. There are some issues, mostly minor, which we will discuss below. This will be an effort to improve the article in areas where we can. I do want to commend the nominator for what looks like a dedicated effort, over time, to bring this article to its current standard. In critiquing the article below, I will start at the top and continue through each section consecutively until we reach the product of our best effort. In my critique, all statements of improvement are suggestions, and may be amended by editing, or mitigated by discussion to reach a best outcome. I leave editing to the nominator or other contributors, and generally do not edit an article I am reviewing. Of course if a violation occurs, (copyvio, BLP issue, negative un-sourced) I will not delay in correcting such an occurrence. If something is unclear, ask for a clarification, and if you are technically unsure, ask for guidance. I am happy to assist in anyway possible, and if I don't know the answer, I will help find it. So; here we go. — My76Strat (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments initiated by reviewer

The lead

• The template for announcing information regarding the team's current status seems to detract from the article and bunches into the area better suited for the infobox. I suggest including this as an additional hat note, like the one for the women's team. My76Strat (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted. Jaime070996 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Fixed My76Strat (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Copy edit the article for over linking. In the first paragraph, football is linked twice. As a rule, link only terms which add valuable information, link the first occurrence of each term as they occur in a section, and link it only once within a section. My76Strat (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted one link. Jaime070996 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Fixed My76Strat (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• In the first sentence, where it says: "...and is controlled by the...", controlled is too strong of an association. "Sanctioned by" is more in keeping with the function of a sanctioning body, and removes the possible impression that the team is controlled. My76Strat (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Changed according to the reviewer. Jaime070996 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Fixed My76Strat (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence which says, "In 1899, the selection of Santa Ana and the selection of San Salvador met for the first ..." is confusing. A concise presentation removes ambiguity without any loss of meaning. For example, I suggest: "In 1899, Santa Ana and San Salvador met for the first ...". My76Strat (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Changed according to the reviewer. Jaime070996 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Fixed My76Strat (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Consider removing these details from the lead: "Raúl Díaz Arce is the top-scorer with 39 goals, while Leonel Cárcamo has the record of being the most capped Salvadoran player with 84 appearances. The El Salvador national football team has presented itself with 41 managers in total, in the national team, and currently the head coach is Rubén Israel.". Most of this is better situated in the body, and when you expand to include this in the body, avoid using current terms which are only conditionally valid. For example the top scorer today might change tomorrow. Therefore when you make such statements, include stating: As of September, 2011, the top scorer was ...". or "the manager was ...". This way it is valid beyond today, and can be corrected when appropriate. See WP:DATED for more information. My76Strat (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Left it in the lead with the addition of the {{as of}} template.

• In this sentence, "El Salvador's national football team's first match came in September 1921", if the match came, they should be the home team, otherwise it is better to say the "first match 'was' in September" to remove that misdirection. My76Strat (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Changed.

• This sentence in the lead, "The Estadio Cuscatlan, also known as "El Coloso De Montserrat" and "La Catedral del Espectaculo", is the official home stadium of the El Salvador national football team with a capacity of 52,000 seats for the public." summarizes a lot of information. None of it is currently expanded in the body. Every point, the stadium name, nicknames, and capacity must be restated somewhere in the body, and there expanded. For example you can add statistics on average attendance, highest attended match, least attended match, construction date and cost, and so on, as long as additional information is presented. The lead is a summary of what is to follow, and not the place to introduce stand alone prose. My76Strat (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Made it more simple and introduced more information to the body.

Beginnings of the national team

• This sentence, "The local team won the game 2–0." is the first place a score is shown. Later inclusions might show a similar statement as: "The local team won the game (2–0)." Why are some enclosed in brackets and others not? If there is a reason, (I presume there is) consider adding a footnote explaining what the difference means. My76Strat (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wrote in the footnote.

• This sentence, "... had a better footballistic structure ...", seems to introduce a neologism. We should avoid such terms with specialized meaning or inside understanding. Use only terms understood by the broadest reading audience. My76Strat (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Made it more understandable to the reader.

• This sentence, "... the biennial UNCAF Nations Cup, the Pan American Games, the Olympics, and have achieved ..." establishes positive use of the serial comma. The next example, "... Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and El Salvador were able ...", omits its use. WP:SERIAL covers that this stylistic option should remain consistent throughout the article. Correct all occurrences of the serial comma to the style consistent with your preference. My76Strat (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Changed all of the serial commas so it could be "1,2, and 3."

External links

• Use the external media template for external images: {{external media | align = right | width = | image1 = | image2 = | image3 = }} My76Strat (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Added the external media template.

Comments initiated by article contributors

• The hat note for that template may not be necessary because it is already being used in the article. See: Recent results and upcoming fixtures. Maybe just taking that template off would be the best option. Jaime070996 18:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• That is a good point, and I think your correction was valid. My76Strat (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence concerning that the team is "controlled" may be too strong. My suggestion may also be "managed" but "santioned by" is also a good word. Jaime070996 18:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree there are other terms you could use that would be good. There are other terms that would be worse as well, so just remember we don't want to give the reader an idea that goes beyond what we are trying to say. To be honest, "managed" could confuse and encroach the duties of a team manager, which many teams have. My76Strat (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Somehow these amateur "clubs" back then were called Selections (Spanish: "Selecciones"). It might be confusing, because the reader might not know that Santa Ana and San Salvador were a made-up team for that occasion. More confusion might arise because the links link to the states of the country of El Salvador and not any team in particular. But I do like your suggestion. It is the lead and it doesn't have to cover everything. The article body will emphasize on clearing any confusion. Jaime070996 18:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, these expanded details are better situated in the body, while we want the lead to give a good summary. My76Strat (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Concerning the details of the lead, I would not know where to put it in the body if it is moved. Jaime070996 19:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the parenthesized scores could be deleted all at once. With or with out it, there is no difference. Deleting the parenthesis would create less confusion to the reader. Jaime070996 19:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes it would be better if they were all presented one way, or if there is a distinguishing factor, such as home team scores as 5–3 and visiting away scores as (5–3), a footnote annotating that distinction would be appropriate. My76Strat (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Fixed Jaime070996 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What I have found

El Salvador national football team is a good article because—

1. It is Well-written to wit:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is Verifiable with no original research. It has been reviewed, and found compliant to the following standards:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. The article is Broad in its coverage and has shown that:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. It is Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. The article is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute and it does:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio, and the specific examples within the article have shown:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Well done! - My76Strat (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)