Talk:History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 10:07, 4 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 (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
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.
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.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

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) 10:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Report

A lot of copyediting is needed as the article is well short of meeting WP:GACR #1. Many of the problems are recurrent. The main difficulty is the use of certain words and phrases which are too readily associated with tabloid match reports and these need to be edited out.

I checked out the images and they are all fine. I really like the quality of the 1900 photo which is a surprisingly sharp image. The article is stable and a couple of the criteria above are not applicable. I'm happy with the scope and structure of the article and satisfied that there is no OR or POV. The sourcing is thorough and reliable; harvnb functionality and citation formatting are fine. The article is interesting and presents good breadth of coverage.

I'm placing the article on hold for now and will carry out a fresh review if the points below can be addressed. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Although the lead provides the essence of the subject, it lacks substance in many respects and says too much about both the Fred Keenor team and the 1958 World Cup. It lacks balance.

There is no mention of the FAW and its role in organising and managing the national team. Equally, there is no mention of the main Welsh international venues, or of clubs like Cardiff and Swansea who have presumably provided most of Wales' players. No mention, either, of the great Welsh players like Billy Meredith, John Charles and Ivor Allchurch.

• The lead is a summary of the article which is what I've attempted to achieve. The Keenor match and the 1958 World Cup, along with the 76 Euros, are possibly the stand out moments in the history of the team during this period. The home grounds of the team have their own dedicated article so I don't think there's a particular notability of them being mentioned here. I'm not sure why the club's would deserve a mention in the lead either? The club's aren't feeder teams, the players are simply selected based on ability, they have no real relevance to the team itself.

• There are many great players over the years, more than simply the three mentioned, but listing players on nothing but reputation is basing the article on opinion rather than what these players actually achieved. The lead is summarising the team's achievements, not individuals. I've tried to cover as many of the biggest names of the eras as I can in the main text. Kosack (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The number of titles won by Wales in the British Home Championship should be summarised: twelve titles, seven outright and five shared. - Added

The opening sentence is too long and twice includes "football team". A better rendition would be two sentences: The Wales national football team is the third oldest in international association football. Wales played their first match in March 1876, four years after Scotland and England had contested the first-ever international match.

• Reworded and split. Kosack (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph contains awkward constructions and the information about the World Cup would be better if changed to: They also began competing in qualification groups for the FIFA World Cup but failed to qualify for the 1950 and 1954 editions. Under the management of Jimmy Murphy, Wales qualified for their first World Cup in 1958 and progressed through the group stage before being defeated by Brazil in the quarter-final.

• Reworded. Kosack (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In the last paragraph, "the inaugural editions" is incorrect because inaugural is unique so change to "the early editions".- Done

A minor point but "Bowen left the role" should be "Bowen quit the role".

• Bowen technically didn't "quit" the role as the FAW had decided to move to a full time position rather than a part time one and Bowen neglected to take them up on the offer. Kosack (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

GACR #1

A thorough proofread and copyedit is required to improve the standard of English throughout. The following are the most salient points:

1. There is conflicting use throughout of possessive pronouns in that its is used instead of their in a team sense. For example, a phrase like "Wales won its first match" should be "Wales won their first match" because Wales is the name of a team of eleven players and is grammatically a plural noun.

• I don't agree on that point I'm afraid. The use of singular or plural is one that comes up considerably in football team articles. The singular usage, when referring to the actual side itself, not the players as a whole, is widely accepted, see featured articles such as the Peru national football team and Wales national football team home stadium. Struway2 provided a very good overview (in Lemonade51's comments) of the issue in my first FAC about the wording which I have generally adhered too. Kosack (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

2. There is overuse (104 instances) of the word side in lieu of team and, in most cases, a phrase like "the Welsh side (i.e., team)" is rendered better by simply saying Wales as the actual name or, often enough, a pronoun or nothing at all.

• Again, this is an issue of avoiding the singular or plural issue by using the team or the side when the player's are the subject of the sentence rather than the actual team itself. Kosack (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Several instances of "defeat(s) to" – replace with "defeat(s) by".

• Why do these need replacing? Defeat to is a widely used term. Kosack (talk)

4. Use of during to be reviewed throughout as it is often out of context and should be replaced by in: e.g., "Ford scored a hat-trick during a 5–1 victory" should be "Ford scored a hat-trick in a 5–1 victory".

• I've dropped several uses of during, specifically when referring to events taking place of a smaller time frame, such as a single match. Kosack (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Wales' first match under the ruling was the opening game of the 1930–31 British Home Championship against Scotland which was largely unaffected by the ruling as it drew the majority of its players from its own leagues. This needs to be rewritten as "which" infers that the game was largely unaffected when in fact it was the Scottish team. As in point #1 above, Scotland here is a plural noun and the clause should say: ...Scotland, who were largely unaffected by the ruling as they drew the majority of their players from their own league. Note also that the Scottish League is singular.

• Again, a singular and plural issue which is along the same lines as above. I've trimmed some slight repetition from here though. Also, the use of plural for the leagues is appropriate as there is more than one league in Scotland to draw players from. Kosack (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Hello, Kosack, and thanks for your responses above and for the changes you have made. I think the remaining differences essentially come down to personal preference or usage without necessarily being either right or wrong. That means granting benefit of the doubt because it would be wrong of me to insist I am right just because I say team and you say side, for example. The fact is that the article is quite a comprehensive history which is readable and enjoyable. It had comfortably passed the rest of the criteria already and so I'm happy to complete by awarding a promotion to GA. Well done. All the best and take good care. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, some of the issues you raised were perfectly understandable to bring up. Kosack (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)