Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2021 [1].

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women edit

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a notable game in the 2019–20 Football Association Women's Super League. I'm bringing this back here at FAC for a second try. Here is a comparison of difference between first and second try: [2]. I have followed the advise reviewers gave at the first attempt and have expanded the article, put it through a peer review and then brought it to the Guild of Copy Editors. I am grateful to the editors who helped improve things. I tried to get consensus at Project Footy on the article's title but didn't get one. Some reviewers have argued it should have "W.F.C." after each club's name ("Arsenal W.F.C. 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C."), to ensure readers know this is a football article and not some other sport. I can surely see their point but I'm not convinced that that is sufficient to convey that this is a women's game. Others have argued that adding WFC twice adds too much clutter. There seems to be no precedent of a women's club match, and notable men's club matches do not seem to have an established rule. I think the current title works fine. This matches how the BBC and the Guardian describe fixtures in their fixtures lists. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both images appear to be freely licensed. But, the first caption in the infobox needs to state clearly that this is not a picture of the game. I would actually advise moving the image to "background" where is less likely to mislead readers who won't necessarily read the caption closely. (t · c) buidhe 11:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. I have swapped the images around: Miedema now at the top and the grounds image in the Match summary section.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that fixes the problem because the picture of Miedema was also taken at a different game, which is not stated clearly. I would move that image to the Aftermath section and simply not have a lead image if there are no free images of the game. Failing that, it needs to be correctly labeled. (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I moved them back. No lead image is a bit weak I think, so I have added the disclaimer to the caption. Having the grounds as lead image seems common (see Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002)). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The football kit templates need alt text. The statistics table needs a caption; you may enclose it with Template:Screen reader-only as it would duplicate the header for sighted readers. Heartfox (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the alt text to the kit template and a screen-reader-only caption. Thanks for reviewing, I appreciate you taking the time to do so. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review I'll get to this soon. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've suffered a concussion, so this isn't happening any time soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, sorry to hear that, Hog Farm. I wish you a speedy recovery. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I recovered a lot quicker than I thought I might, so I'll be claiming this source review again.

Source review edit

As above, might claim for wikicup points. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend standardization between sentence case title and title case titles. It's not a big deal, but some like to see that.
    I think there are no title case titles.
  • I notice you're not very consistent with how you format the references to The Football Association. Sometimes it's linked, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's the publisher, sometimes it's in the |work= parameter. I'd recommend consistency here.
    Well spotted. Fixed.
  • Likewise, sometimes BBC Sport is linked, and sometimes it isn't.
    Fixed.

The above are pretty picky, but that's about all I can see from glancing at the formatting. I will be doing spot checks for text-source integrity and close paraphrasing later. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks are at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/ArsenalBristol. No close paraphrasing issues, although there are some minor detail support issues that may be my lack of comprehension. One link now goes to the current season instead of the season it is cited, so there may be a workaround needed there. Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "win set a new league record scoreline". I am not sure about that. Didn't it 'win set a new league record margin of victory'? What do the RSs say?
    RSs: BBC says biggest victory and biggest WSL score. The Guardian says highest-scoring game (4 Dec) and Margin of victory is biggest (1 Dec). Telegraph says biggest victory. ESPN says margin of victory. Arsenal.com says highest-ever winning margin. The FA says FA WSL record score. I think we have 4 possible records here: 1) most goals by one team, 2) most goals combined, 3) biggest delta, 4) first time 10+. Some of these RS statements are ambiguous and do not clearly map onto 1) 2) or 3). But from that set of statements we have 3) and 4) covered, and it seems clear to me the BBC and the Guardian (4 Dec) are taking about 2). So I changed the wording from "record scoreline" to "highest-scoring game" and changed the source from BBC to Guardian (4 Dec). Do you think we could use any of these RSs to unambiguously support record 1)? If so we could add a 7th record.
It seems to me that that is the case, but I struggle to see it unambiguouslt stated, which is irritating.
  • "and left Bristol in eleventh place." It may be helpful to specify the total number of places. Eg 'in eleventh place of twelve.' or whatever the case was? Similarly but more so in the main article.
    Done both in lead and in body
  • "gave them eighteen points from seven games". A brief footnote explaining how points are allocated would seem to be in order.
    Done
  • "but behind on goal difference". Similarly.
    Done
  • "Bristol began the 2019–20 season in September". No need to repeat when the season began.
    Done
  • Somewhere in there it should state how many teams there were in the division.
    Done
  • "were at full strength before the game". This suggests that they weren't afterwards. Perhaps "Before" → 'for'?
    Done
  • "Arsenal began the game in a 3–4–3 formation". Again an explanatory footnote for X-Y-Z formations would seem to be in order. (Note that when ever I suggest a footnote, an in line explanation would be an even better solution.)
    Perhaps we drop this altogether? I checked to see how other FAs have handled this and noticed that Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) and FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) do not mention formation at all. Perhaps I have gone overboard on detail?
I would have no objection to this information being dropped. When one has a lot of information on a topic, there is always a temptation to try and include all of it. Equally, it could go in, but it would need an explanation either in line or as a footnote and I suspect that it would be difficult to make this suscinct. Your call.
I removed it.
  • "The assist-maker". Really? It may read better in less succinct but more standard English.
    Done. I thought it looked odd but the BBC used it in their match review so I thought it was just me being foreign. I have rephrased both instances of assist maker.
  • What's an "assist".
    I thought this was quite a common concept (the Independent uses it in the title of their article), but I see that neither Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. nor Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) use the noun assist. So I have now linked the verb and replaced the noun with pass.
It is. You and me know what an assist is. But we are writing an encyclopedia rather than a match report, so the more we can explain what is happening to non-football (or "soccer"!) fans, the better. "Assist" is fine, so long s there is a brief in line explanation at first mention. Of course, this is just one editor's opinion, so feel free to come back at me.
I think by having used the verb assisted first, which is a known concept, it suffices to have the noun linked.
Umm. That seems borderline to me. But you make a reasonable case, so ok.
  • "Miedema's first hat-trick". An in line explanation of "hat-trick" please. Eg 'Miedema's first hat-trick (three goals in one match)' or similar.
    Done. I had looked at FA Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and there is no explanation of hat-trick there, so I thought that level of understanding was allright, but anyway I have removed hat-trick from the lead and explained it as you suggested at first instance, which is actually in the Background section.
  • "to the top right corner". Could we add 'of the goal' for non-aficionados?
    Done. Twice.
  • "the fourth goalscorer of the game to make the score" → 'the fourth goalscorer of the game, making the score'.
    Done
  • "scored the 8–0 from the centre of the box". A typo I assume?
    Are you referring to centre? The article is in British English, so centre instead of center, right? I actually have now replaced the word box with penalty area, to mimick Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.
You can't say "scored the 8–0". Possibly you mean 'scored the eighth goal' or 'scored from the centre of the box to make the score 8–0'?
Ah, sorry. English is not my first language. Rephrased.
  • "subbed her off the pitch". This is jargon. "subbed" should be in full, with a brief explanation of what it means/why it is permitted/done. What does "off the pitch" add?
    I rephrased it to avoid having to explain the concept of substitution. I had hoped to get that explanation from other FA match articles but could not find it, I checked at least 5. The FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) and Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. do not even link to Substitute (association football). I am happy to try and write something but I do find it a bit odd that it seems that none of the editors of other football FAs seem to have felt the need to explain the concept. So I removed the "subbed" and "off the pitch" but I kept the bit that follows: Her substitute, Emma Mitchell, scored ...
That seems reasonable. "Substitute" is a normal English word, so a non-footy reader should be able to work out what happened. "subbed" is jargon and would leave many Wikipedia readers baffled.
  • "Arsenal's goalkeeper Zinsberger brought down their Belgian international striker". "their → 'Bristol's'.
    Done
  • "on the rebound of her own penalty kick". What did it rebound off?
    I rephrased it.
  • "So-yun's goal tally at the time stood at thirty-three." What was Miedema's?
    Do you want her tally before the game or after? Ideally we have both I think, but there is a slight problem. I remember trying to find a reliable source for the post game number but failed. I asked on the Talk:Vivianne_Miedema page for help but no one seems to have noticed and/or tried.
After. If you have a source for her pre-game tally and for the six during the game that, IMO, is adequete.
Found a source that, with a little bit of counting, allows us to use both. Added.
  • "the FA named Goal of the Match." Why the upper case G and M? And do the RSs say that it was "named" the GotM? It seems an odd description; 'awarded the appellation of' or similar seems more likely.
    The FA simply uses GotM as a header in their match template, no verb used. I changed it into "and which the FA considered the best goal of the match."
  • "she further proved her credentials as a nominee for the Ballon d'Or Féminin". Which is?
    I added an explanation
  • "Reactions" section: the quote in the second paragraph should be a block quote.
    Done. It does make the layout look odd though, with the orphan sentence about her looking back. Any suggestions how we might improve this? Maybe we should drop the whole blockquote altogether?
It looks fine to me. That is just how Wikipedia sometimes turns out. I would leave it it. Or, possibly, paraphrase the whole thing into Wikipedia's voice?
OK, if it is good enough elsewhere, we'll just leave it like it is.
  • "In the following rounds". "Rounds" is usually only used of cup and/or knock out competitions.
    Done. Replaced with weeks.
  • "After 23 February, no more of the 2019–20 season's matches were played." I think that the Covid explanation needs to come immediately after this.
    Done
  • Red link Golden Boot.
    Done. As soon as I have time I will create the article.
  • "Golden Boot" Who awards it?
    Done
  • You link to "the Professional Footballers' Association Fans' Player of the Year." But the target article only mentions the men's version.
    Link removed for the time being. When I have time I will edit the men-only article PFA Fans' Player of the Year to include the women, and then link it again. Is that ok?
That's fine.
  • "narrowly avoiding relegation." How narrowly?
    Done

That is an excellent piece of writing and a very good article, my nit picking above notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed review, much appreciated. And thank you for your kind words but I owe other reviewers, a peer reviewer and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, much. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are an admirable lot at GoCE, aren't they?
  • I have done a little light copy editing. Come back to me here if you are unhappy with any of it, or don't understand why I have changed something.
  • "assisted by Miedema with a cross." I would like to give a reader a little more context as to what "assisted" and, especially, "cross" mean. How would you feel about something like 'assisted by Miedema, who crossed the ball to her from the left/right side of the pitch'? Just a suggestion. And link cross/crossed to Cross (association football).
Link done. And rephrase done. I added the YouTube highlights as a primary source, allowing for a bit more detail in the match report. All we had was the computer-generated BBC live text. So quite a few sentences got tweaked in that section, also addressing the issue RTM had with the many short sentences.
Done
Thanks. I have added a few more.
  • "after Arsenal's goalkeeper Zinsberger brought down Bristol's Belgian international striker". Is there a way of making it a little clearer what happened here? At the moment I get the impression of a rugby tackle!
Having seen it on the highlights on YouTube, it was far from a rugby tackle. Just clumsy. I rephrased it.
  • "Miedema became the first player". I assume → 'Miedema became the first WSL player'?
Yes. Technically the first sentence already restricts the scope to the league, but I added WSL for the avoidance of doubt
  • "They thought her fourth goal was the best of the match, a goal The Independent described as "wonderful" and which the FA considered the best goal of the match". "the best of the match ... the best goal of the match". Is a little variation possible?
Yes, that doesn't read so well. I changed it.

And that's it. Nearly there I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you think we are nearly there. I want to research the topics of "understandable" and "nearly self-contained" as described on WP:PERFECT a bit more so I can make a more informed opinion about inline explanations and footnotes. In my previous FACs, all on other topics (art, psychology, zoology), I had not encountered this issue, so I want to understand it. I'll report back in a day or so. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good essay, although it is only an essay. Few things in this life are perfect, but it is a good target. Thanks for checking in, and feel free to take your time. There is no rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have addressed your points, but let me know if not or if there is more. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion edit

I have completed my mini research project into what WP:PERFECT calls 'understandable' and 'nearly self-contained'. I am disappointed to find so little guidance. Anyway, I can see that one school of thought could take a strict interpretation of the word 'nearly'. In this line of thinking an article about a football match would explain the rules and basic concepts of football. And on the opposite side of the spectrum, a more relaxed interpretation in which everything that pertains to the match itself should be in the article, but not the rules and concepts, as they impact readability, stopping the reader to see the forest for the trees. And then there are probably a few schools in between these extremes.

I used a few sources to form my own opinion:

  • the WP guidance on MOS:LINKEXAMPLES, WP:BECONCISE, and a few more
  • other football FAs. (Although I have not found explicit WP guidance of inter-article consistency, that seems an obvious goal for an encyclopedia)
  • FAs in other topics (I believe that internal consistency increases overall trust in WP)
  • mainstream media headlines (not from football-specific publications but from outlets like the Guardian)

Just from WP guidance alone I think I find myself to subscribe to the relaxed interpretation of 'nearly'. Editors and reviewers of other football FAs seem to subscribe to the same school: I looked at a dozen or so and none explain basic concepts in article. Then I looked at a few non-football FAs and FACs. Looking at some biology topic, say some dinosaur, I would not expect there to be an explanation of paleontology or evolution. I would expect to see just links. Indeed, there were just links. And some music album article to just contain links to its genre, but not explain the genre and what music actually is. Indeed it did. This strongly influenced me.

In my humble opinion this amounts to the following in football match articles for me:

  1. common words that should not be linked or explained: ball, goal, pitch, match
  2. common words that may be linked provided it doesn't not lead to overlinking: defender, substitute (they mean in football what they mean elsewhere)
  3. words that should be linked provided it doesn't not lead to overlinking: penalty area, assist, 3-4-3 formation (one can infer their meaning reasonably easily)
  4. words that should be linked: hat-trick, offside (common football terms yet no way of telling what it means directly from the word)
  5. words that require an inline explanation and a link: 'expected goals' (anything that is a specialist football term, somethat that the casual football fan does not know. There are very few of these so explaining won't hinder overall readability)
  6. words that require a footnote: none. A footnote is a mechanism for the expert reader, not the non-expert reader.

This to me is in line with other FAs. Thoughts? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Bear in mind that WP:PERFECT is (only) an essay. A good essay, but to be treated with circumspection. Regarding links I tend to lean on the MoS policy at MOS:LINKSTYLE, especially:

  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links ...
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links...

All guidance depends on context, so I am loath to agree that a specific word does or does not need in line explanation without seeing the context is is used in. I prefer to read it in context and then apply the MoS. That said, broadly I:

1 & 2. Agree agree with your first two points

3. Disagree with your third - how can one infer, out of context, what they mean at all, much less "reasonably easily"?

4. Agree with point four and your comment "no way of telling what it means directly from the word" which would seem to mean that the three MoS policy points above require an in line explanation, or, possibly, context which makes it clear in line what is mean to non-football followers.


5. Don't understand your distinction between 4 and 5 - is it based on policy? - and would not agree that we are writing for "the casual football fan".

6. Disagree regarding footnotes - they can be helpful for all levels of readers, especially (IMO) non-expert ones, although in many, possibly most, cases they can be replaced with in line explanations, which I tend to prefer, and which arguably the MoS requires. As always, context is important here.

I am not convinced of the utility of this discussion, as so much depends on context and policy seems clear. I would much rather discuss specific cases from the article, where context is known and we "only" have to discuss the applicability of policy to a non-hypothetical case. Was your research sparked by disagreement with any of my comments above in particular? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair point. I was just trying to establish my thinking, given that you suggested explanations for goal difference and X-Y-Z formation, but not for match, goal, table, etc.
Yeah, these sorts of discussions can be interesting and help to both communicate each other's viewpoints and clarify ones own thinking, but I didn't want you think that it was the same as addressing my comments one by one. Speaking of which, they all seem to have been satisfactorily dealt with. A lot has happened to this article since I made the first of them, so I am going to give it another full read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his broke her FA WSL record, set at five against Liverpool". I am unclear whether she broke her record, or the record. Perhaps 'his broke the FA WSL record, which she had set herself with five against Liverpool' or similar?
  • "This broke her FA WSL record, set at five against Liverpool in September 2018. She scored six goals, a first in the league, and assisted with four further goals." To my eye this would read better - in context - if the two sentences were juxtaposed.
I am not quite sure what you mean but I have changed things around, starting now with goals and then introducing the ten goal involvements. See if this is ok.
  • "did not deal well with a ball from Evans, allowing her to score again." Replace "her" with 'Miedema'.
  • "First, Evans assisted Miedema who, after a short run, scored from the centre of the penalty area". This is the first mention of "assist", and I am not really happy with it. Would it be possible to give a little more context/detail? Eg 'First, Evans assisted Miedema by passing the ball to her from the edge of the penalty area [or whatever the case was]; Miedema then, after a short run, scored from the centre of the penalty area' or similar.
  • "jumping from thirty to thirty-six goals". Possibly a synonym for "jumping"? (I don't insist.) Eg 'Increasing her total'.
  • Block quote: Optional: As the paragraph starts "In a post-match interview, Miedema said ...", do we really need the attribution "-Vivianne Miedema" after it?
I don't think we can rely on all people reading the text top to bottom. Some readers who just scan the page might find it useful to see whose quote this is.
  • "In the following weeks, Arsenal kept their top league position with subsequent wins". You don't need both "In the following weeks" and "subsequent". Suggest deleting "subsequent".
  • "Miedema became the first WSL". "WSL" should be 'FA WSL'.
  • "was postponed as on 13 March the FA". Comma after "postponed"?
  • "Bristol finished the terminated season in tenth position". "terminated" just means "ended". Do you mean 'abbreviated'? (Or, possibly, 'shortened'?)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another close look. I believe I have addressed the issues, but please do take a look at my changes in the lead about the records. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. This is now, IMO, entirely FA-worthy and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM edit

  • Oppose there's a lot to be done here I'm afraid, some basic issues with the writing style in terms of repetition and ambiguity, the match report is far from engaging (prose is jarring with multiple very short sentences, no flow to it at all) and there are several other less significant problems (MOS issues, duplicate links, reference formatting etc) all of which must be fixed. There are also many phrases which, to a non-expert, make no sense without clicking on the link (e.g. allowing Arsenal's Dutch international striker Vivianne Miedema to score a hat-trick, Two corners for the home team quickly followed., centre of the box ... there has even been suggestion that playing positions like defender, striker, goalkeeper should be linked. Not seeing some of the claims in the match report in the sources either, e.g. "she scored another goal at close range" doesn't seem to be mentioned in the BBC report, and the BBC report isn't brilliant, (for example) "had 32 shots during Sunday's game, 17 of them on target" and then contradicts itself in the statistics table). Other statements like "Her six goals made her the highest-scoring non-British player in FA WSL history, overtaking South-Korean Ji So-yun" are dubious, it wasn't the six goals that did that, it was the six goals that allowed her to surpass the existing record, for example. I would suggest this is peer reviewed to iron out some of these fundamental issues. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, thank you for taking the time to review, and also for your Feb 8 edits. I must admit your oppose surprises me as I had hoped that the peer review it went through earlier this year, followed by the copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, would fix basic issues with the writing. Before addressing the oppose, please allow me to go through a few of the "less significant problems" you mention specifically:
  • Not seeing some of the claims in the match report in the sources
It is a bit tricky to find but they are on the page. Source reviewer Hog Farm could not find it either but if you scroll down, halfway down the page there is a tab called "Live text". If you click it you can see the sources for all these detailed claims.
  • MOS issues
Any specific ones?
  • duplicate links
I'm using the tool Highlight duplicate links and it comes back with "No duplicate links". What am I missing?
  • Reference formatting
Anything specific not right? A couple of people have looked at this now and have all missed what you are seeing, so a bit of guidance would be much appreciated.
  • many phrases which, to a non-expert, make no sense without clicking on the link
Gog the Mild in his review pointed out a few that I have fixed (hat-trick, 3 points per game for example). I do not find it easy to determine what needs explained and what can be assumed to be understood. For instance, from the FA Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. I inferred that hat-trick is an established term, which has to be linked but does not require an inline explanation. Your highlighting of "Two corners for the home team quickly followed." suggests to me that there is something not right with corner. Should this just be corner kicks? Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. simply uses corner kicks with no further explanation at first, and then later on just uses the word corner. Same with substitute. I have replaced the word box with penalty area. Like on Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. I have linked it but not explained it. Am I comparing this article to the wrong FAs? Which FAs are the right ones?
  • there has even been suggestion that playing positions like defender, striker, goalkeeper should be linked
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Who made this suggestion and where? Are you saying that all these should be linked or should they all be explained (and linked)? Looking at Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. again, what we have in the article here seems to me the same. Neither explain or link defender.
  • the BBC report isn't brilliant .. and then contradicts itself in the statistics table
What is best practice here to deal with an internal inconsistency in an otherwise reliable source?
  • Now the Oppose. I have asked the same person who helped me with prose in my first 4 successful FACs to have a go at improving this article. Which football match articles should she look at to get a sense of what is desired, both in terms of tone and assumed level of understanding? Edwininlondon (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realise it's disappointing to see an oppose here but I'm strictly applying the same approach that I was afforded earlier this year. It's interesting to see that some of the phrases which are clearly technical and simply liked are fine in this FAC but not in others. I'd be delighted to help with your specific queries, but my reviews have been criticised for being some kind of nitpick list which shouldn't be addressed at the nomination itself. One word of advice: definitely do not compare what is expected with previous FAs. We have some reviewers who quite literally about-face within six weeks of separate reviews so you cannot assume what was just fine two months ago is just fine now. Assuming terms like "hat-trick" or "corner" or "penalty area" are clear to a non-expert reader (I think the acid test these days is a 7-year-old American child) is a mistake and even though you link them, that is no longer considered sufficient (although it was in late-2020). When I get more time to spend on this, we can go over more specifics, hopefully in the next week or so, as I have other priorities at the moment. I'd still find a copyeditor, e.g. "When two teams have an equal amount of points, the team with the bigger number of goals scored minus goals conceded ranks higher." needs a complete re-write for example: "When two teams have equal points, the team with the highest net difference between goals scored and goals conceded ranks higher." This, in a nutshell, is a perfect example of why footnotes or inline explanations of terms is a really bad idea because every article will explain it slightly differently and that is really poor from an encyclopedic perspective. We have specific articles (e.g. goal difference) or the Glossary of association football terms for precisely that purpose. But we have to be consistent now, so all such technical terms will need to be expertly and correctly defined within the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My copy-edit contact is willing to look at the style issues in the match report, trying to get it to flow better. I hope to report back soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I note your reference to WP:PERFECT above, I'm afraid as the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good and what is now expected (mandated against consensus indeed) at FAC is very much geared up to subjective but relentless adherence to aspects of MOS which are entirely detrimental to the target audience of some specific genres of articles yet not others. I wish you luck with your endeavour on that aspect, in the meantime good luck with the copyedit. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to the copy of the match report, as suggested by my copy-edit contact. I also have added the YouTube video of the match highlights as primary source, providing more facts and allowing the prose to be less robotic. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's better but there are still those many phrases which rely on wikilinks alone and, these days, that's not considered sufficient for a football FA. You need to imagine you're explaining to a 7-year-old child and if they don't understand the entire article without having to click away, that's a fail. It's not what I consider an FA should be but sadly the FA co-ords and others have set their stall out that way (within the last two months) so we all should comply with that. What I do know is that the new demand is going to make (a) sports FAs practically unreadable to the intended audience and (b) things like cricket and baseball FAs practically impossible because of the intricacies of the rules etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand who told you to remove details of the formations per this edit as it's a key piece of information for the article. I understand that means you'll need to explain it in very basic terms for it to be understood by all readers, and that will make it less enjoyable to the target audience, but removing it entirely is not appropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked to see how other FAs have handled this and noticed that Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) and FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) do not mention formation at all. But we could bring it back in with something like this: Arsenal began the game in a 3–4–3 formation, with 3 defenders, 4 midfielders and 3 forwards; Bristol used a 4–2–3–1 formation, with 4 defenders, 2 defensive midfielders, 3 attacking midfielders, and 1 forward. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, things have changed here quite substantially lately so it's unwise to rely on other FAs to draw your standards. The formation information should definitely be there, just because it's deemed too difficult to explain it succinctly and a link to the comprehensive article is deemed insufficient (suddenly) that should not mean we start removing details which are perfectly relevant. I think your explanation will satisfy those who are deeming links to complex topics to no longer be adequate, of course it will be completely over the top for the majority of the intended audience of the article who will find it patronising and unnecessary. But in any case, the information should be there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I look at the only other football article currently at FAC, the 1987 FA Cup Final, I can see that so far the reviewers there don't seem to demand explanations of basic football concepts. My hope is those reviewers will review this article as well, so we can get more views on this topic. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the article now has a feel of being created by committee and is not really the same as that reviewed previously by the supporter. For instance, the opening sentence mentions Arsenal three times. This is not what I would consider professional and engaging writing I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RTM, for continuing to watch this article. It's not unusual for an opening sentence of a match FA to mention the same word 3 times, see for instance Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. which mentions Manchester 3 times. I would say that the article has had minor tweaks only, there have been no structural changes. But I leave it to others to judge if the article is still by and large the same. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but you have to stop relying on what was considered acceptable in FAs, even those which passed in 2020. What was deemed acceptable then is by no means what is acceptable now, standards and reviewers' expectations change from review to review on the same subject matter in a matter of weeks. I would say anything with the same word three times in a single sentence needs work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777 edit

Comments soon! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the effort to review this.

Lead

  • I don't think this is the type of article where the article title would be bolded in the lead opening sentence. (see examples of similar matches where the title is a score, or MOS:AVOIDBOLD)
Agreed. Rephrased sentence along the lines of Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.
  • Should clarify the match was on Arsenal's home ground
Done
  • in the league's history <<<=== you don't need to link the league again
This one links to the league page, the previous one to the season. I think the link labels clearly signal the difference and both are useful destinations in this context, I would say
Okay, I didn't realize. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • , a first in the league. ===>>> , a league record.
Done
  • Her tally in the game meant she overtook ===>>> With her goal tally, she overtook (avoid "meaning" / "meant")
Done
  • She also assisted with four further goals, meaning she was involved in ten goals altogether. ===>>> She was involved in all of Arsenal's first ten goals, having also assisted on four further goals.
Done
  • This broke the FA WSL record, which she had set herself with involvement in five goals ===>>> This broke her own FA WSL record of five goal involvements that she had set
Done
  • eleventh place of twelve ===>>> eleventh place out of twelve clubs
Done
  • the Football Writers' Association named her Women's Footballer of Year. ===>>> and was named Women's Footballer of Year by the Football Writers' Association.
Done
  • Somewhere (probably early) in the lead, add "Arsenal were the reigning (or defending?) champions and entered the match third in the league. Bristol were in tenth position, having not yet won a game."
Done

Background

  • The background seems to start out of nowhere. It should be something more like: "The match was played in this league. This league is..."
  • Suggesting as a first sentence: "The 1 December 2019 match between Arsenal Women and Bristol City Women took place in the eighth round of the 2019–20 FA Women's Super League (FA WSL) season."
  • And then continue: "The FA WSL is a professional association football league of twelve clubs that was launched in 2011 by The Football Association (the FA) to replace the FA Women's Premier League National Division as the highest level of women's football in England."
  • That above sentence also fixes these two issues:
the FA Women's Super League (FA WSL), a semi-professional league of eight clubs <<<=== This is wrong and/or misleading. The league is fully professional and has 12 clubs. You can mention how many clubs the league had originally if you want, but I don't see the point.
It wasn't mentioned that this is an association football league and not some other code of football.
OK, all of the above done. With one proposed change: I mention right away that this an association football match. It seems a bit too late to do that in the second sentence.
Okay, sounds good. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2019 they became league champions again, under their new name of Arsenal Women, when they defeated Brighton & Hove Albion in their penultimate game of the 2018–19 FA WSL season <<<=== I'd suggest rephrasing to: "The Arsenal Women entered the season as the reigning league champions, having finished first in the 2018–19 FA WSL season by seven points." (Mentioning the game against Brighton & Hove Albion doesn't seem necessary, and seems to imply they only won the league by a small margin even though they didn't.)
Done. With 2 changes: I added a footnote to account for the name change Arsenal Ladies to Arsenal Women, and I avoided 2 sentences starting with Arsenal by using They.
  • to score a hat-trick (three goals in one match) ===>>> to score three goals for a hat-trick.
Done
  • In the 2017–18 season, Bristol drew their away game with Arsenal 1–1.[7] In the 2018–19 season they lost the fixture at Arsenal's home venue Meadow Park 4–0, allowing Arsenal's Dutch international striker Vivianne Miedema to score a hat-trick (three goals in one match).[8] <<<=== This seems incomplete or unclear. Why do you mention these two match results as opposed to all four from the previous two seasons, or only the two from the previous season?
These 2 are the matches that match exactly the fixture. The reverse fixture is less relevant I would say, and I left them out to avoid clutter.
  • I would put the cup result after those sentences instead of at the end of the section.
I think that messes up the timing. Everything described now is in chronological order.
Okay, that's fair. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can merge the first two paragraphs.
Done
  • The 2019–20 season started in September and featured twelve teams <<<=== Assuming you change the background to mention "twelve teams" earlier, you don't need to mention it again.
Done
  • Arsenal were level with Manchester City on points, but behind on goal difference by seven, putting them in third position in the table ===>>> Arsenal were level with Manchester City with the second-most points, but were in third position in the table by virtue of having a worse goal difference. (Also, you don't need the note.)
Done. I agree we don't need the note, but another FAC reviewer wanted it. Are you ok with keeping it or do you want it removed?
It's fine if you leave it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two paragraphs don't synthesize the season results up to that point pretty well. Instead of listing the match results, I would suggest stating the teams' records and highlighting only each team's most important matches. Also, the new players for both teams are general points that you can state at the beginning of each paragraph; they shouldn't be tied to only the first match of the season.
That sounds reasonable. I will synthesize the results better. I just need to look up what sources are available. On the second point: I have moved the new signings.
Done.

Summary

  • Why did you remove the formations? Relatedly, if possible, you should probably explain the reason for using each formation, albeit with women's football, it may not be possible to find a source explaining that.
I removed it because it is not present in a few other FAs I looked at and another FAC reviewer, Gog the Mild, wanted a detailed explanation. A 2nd reviewer also thinks it is better to bring it back, so I now have brought it back. Will try to find something about why.
I can't find any sources explaining the why of specific formations. I checked other match FAs and didn't see any.
I think just the formations is fine. Nothing else really depends on it. It's just for completeness. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the edge ===>>> from the left edge
Done
  • turned goalscorer ===>>> became a goalscorer
Done
  • , following a pass from Lia Wälti ===>>> off a pass from Lia Wälti (and note: no comma)
Done
  • Miedema's first hat-trick of the day came in the thirty-sixth minute, when ===>>> Miedema completed a hat-trick of the day came in the thirty-sixth minute when (I don't think two hat tricks or double hat trick is a real term for six goals. She had a hat trick in that she scored three goals, but six goals doesn't mean two hat tricks. Happy to be convinced otherwise if you have a good source.)
If I Google site:bbc.co.uk "double hat-trick" I can see quite a few times the BBC has used the term. Just for this game there are quite a few as well, searching for "Miedema double hat-trick", and some of those are even a reliable source.
Okay, I checked that link, and I think that suffices. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which landed just inside the goal, ===>>> that landed just inside the goal,
Done
  • by passing the ball to her from the edge ===>>> with a pass from the edge
Done
  • When she left the game after seventy minutes ===>>> When she was substituted out of the game after seventy minutes
Done
  • after Mead passed her the ball ===>>> off a pass from Mead
Done
  • after Bristol's Belgian international striker Daniëls dispossessed the hesitating Zinsberger and was fouled in the penalty area. ===>>> after Bristol's Belgian international striker Yana Daniëls was fouled by Arsenal's goalkeeper Zinsberger in the penalty area. Zinsberger had been dispossessed by Daniëls while she was trying to pass the ball away.
Done
  • but the ball bounced back to the Bristol forward, who scored the last goal of the match, giving Bristol a consolation goal ===>>> but Daniëls was able to get to the rebound first and immediately scored a consolation goal (I watched the highlights. I don't think the ball bounced back to her. She had to go and get it.)
I agree she had to make the effort, so I used the first bit of your suggestion. But I do think we need to say it's the last goal of the match, just using consolation goal may not be sufficiently clear.
Okay. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to BBC Sport, <<<=== you don't need this.
Removed
  • an average of one every three minutes ===>>> an average of one about every three minutes
Done

Records

  • The match resulted in multiple league records. ===>>> The match set multiple league records.
Done
  • It was the highest winning margin in league history,[38][39] and ===>>> It had the highest winning margin in league history,[38][39] and was
Done
Oh dear. Replaced it with the ESPN source.
  • Still skeptical that "double hat trick" is a real term for six goals.
I welcome skepticism at all times. BTW, Telegraph and Guardian use it as well
Cleared, as stated above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which she set in September 2018 ===>>> which she had set in September 2018
Done
  • Miedema surpassed South-Korean Ji So-yun as the highest-scoring non-British player in league history, increasing her total from thirty to thirty-six goals; So-yun's goal tally at the time stood at thirty-three ===>>> With her fourth goal, Miedema surpassed South-Korean Ji So-yun as the highest-scoring non-British player in league history, ultimately extending the record to thirty-six goals by the end of the match.
Done

Reactions

  • Ballon d'Or Féminin, a football award ===>>> Ballon d'Or Féminin, an award
Done
  • France Football, honouring ===>>> France Football honouring
Done

Aftermath

  • Bristol dropped from tenth place to eleventh of twelve ===>>> Bristol dropped from tenth place out of twelve to eleventh
Done
  • she also remained in first place on the table of players who assisted others to score. ===>>> She also kept her position as the league leader in assists with (how many?)
Done
  • Her double hat-trick <<<=== same comment
Same reply :)
  • Listing the results match-by-match is okay for Arsenal since their week-by-week position in the table matters. But I would suggest doing a better job of synthesizing Bristol's results after this match instead of just listing them in order.
Okay I will do that. Something along the lines of how many wins and draws, and thus points?
Done
  • The Football Writers' Association named her Women's Footballer of Year,[60] and she won the Professional Footballers' Association's WSL PFA Fans' Player of the Year. ===>>> The Football Writers' Association named her Women's Footballer of Year,[60] and the Professional Footballers' Association named her the WSL PFA Fans' Player of the Year. (parallelism)
Done
  • having earned 0.6 points per game versus Liverpool's 0.4 and Birmingham's 0.5 <<<=== Just put the points and number of games
I don't think that is right since the decision was made on points per game. I don't think we should make the reader do the maths.

Overall

  • Was the match broadcast?
I need to research that.
I added something, right after the crowd size, which seems related. No viewing numbers unfortunately.
Sure, whatever is available. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main comment is to improve the organization of the background, and also part of the aftermath for a similar reason. The comments on the lead are also a little bit more than minor. The rest is minor. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the effort to review this and make constructive suggestions. I believe I have addressed most if not all of the mior points and have some homework to do before being able to address the remaining points. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all points now. I expect I have made mistakes in my edits, I hope you can find the time to find them. Please feel free to edit directly if you find that easier. Thx. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New comments

  • The background is better now!
  • Replies that are resolved are above.
  • In the 2017–18 season, Bristol drew their away game with Arsenal 1–1.[8] In the 2018–19 season they lost the fixture at Arsenal's home venue Meadow Park 4–0, <<<=== Ah, I hadn't realized they were both away games because the second sentence uses "home". I would re-use "away" in the second sentence. How about: "In the 2017–18 season, Bristol drew their away game with Arsenal at Meadow Park 1–1. In the 2018–19 season they lost the away fixture 4–0, "
  • You could probably footnote the breakdown by position for each formation.
  • with a right-footed shot from the centre of the penalty area that landed just inside the goal, following a pass from Daniëlle van de Donk. ===>>> with a right-footed shot from the centre of the penalty area that landed just inside the goal, having received the ball from Daniëlle van de Donk.
  • I was wondering why there was no field diagram in the middle of the lineups? (The BBC report includes the diagrams under the line-ups tab.)
  • The YouTube links don't go to the correct YouTube video (i.e. the external video).
  • having earned 0.6 points per game versus Liverpool's 0.4 and Birmingham's 0.5 <<<=== How about all three: "nine points in fourteen games (0.64 points per game) versus Liverpool's six points in fourteen games (0.43) and Birmingham's seven points in thirteen games (0.54)". The raw point totals are still more what actually mattered. Taking the points per game instead of the usual total points didn't actually change the standings in this case.
  • And if you make that change above, then the last sentence: "climbing from the bottom of the table to tenth position with nine points from fourteen games" ===>>> "climbing from the bottom of the table with six points to tenth position with nine points" (assuming you already stated the number of games)
  • Relatedly, seeing as taking the points per game did change the standings for first place: "On 5 June, the FA declared Chelsea champions, based on a points per game basis, ahead of Manchester City and Arsenal" ===>>> On 5 June, the FA declared Chelsea champions, based on them having 2.60 points per game, ahead of Manchester City's 2.50 and Arsenal's 2.40.

Some new comments / replies. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I believe I have addressed your points, except for the lineup diagram. I have not been able to find out how these are made. I did manage to locate a template that puts 1 team on the pitch, but not 2. Do you happen to know how I can make one? Edwininlondon (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize before, but apparently someone was making these. I think if you just ask PeeJay to make one, they will do it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting, if that wasn't clear! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, I realise there's active reviews but this is getting close to two months old and we're nowhere near consensus to promote so can we pls continue the improvements outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arsenal_Women_11–1_Bristol_City_Women/archive2&oldid=1014662999"