Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup final/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

" at the Soccer City" the?
"900 million " non-breaking space.
"goalkeeper while" I would have a comma after goalkeeper here.
Just FYI, "penalty area" needs no piping or disambiguation.
Why is Webb referenced in the infobox, and nothing else is?
"being sent off" could link.
"win for Spain. .... Spain's win " bit repetitive.
"from the 2006 World Cup" not sure you need "the" inside the pipe.
"Jo'bulani is the" maybe "became the"?
"of the Jo'bulani ball used" why italics here?
"in 1978.[2]" overlinked.
"when single elimination" hyphenate?
"Spain were the reigning European champions, having won UEFA Euro 2008" how did the Netherlands get on there?
"the two major tournaments for European international teams." citation?
You link and hyphenate half-time in the route to the final but not in the lead. Check the other instances in the article for consistency.
"firing home" minor journalese flag.
"a Japanese clearance" this sounds like some kind of specific move....
"had already qualified for" not sure you need "already".
"with a penalty after" pick the association football-specific link here.
"beaten Italy in their final" overlinked.
"past the goalkeeper" could name him.
"by Sneijder.[20] Sneijder then" repetitive.
"faced five-times champions" maybe world champions?
"The Netherlands then ... The Netherlands then..." repetitive.
"was sent off for" link.
Diego Forlan is missing a diacritic.
"header shortly" link header.
"They were drawn in ..." then drawn (so as not to confuse with previous sentence).
"Switzerland.[31][17] Spain" ref order.
"Spain began their campaign" finals campaign.
You've linked goalkeeper, but not defender?
"picking up a loose ball " not literally.
"had fouled Torres" link foul.
"to tackle" link?
"group winners.[36][3]" ref order.
"pass, with Villa scoring into" -> pass who scored into...
"ball into the goal shortly half-time, but the goal" dual use of goal, did the goal fall over?
"Oscar Cardozo" is missing a diacritic.
"the 1974 final.[44" overlinked.
Why is fifth official Toru Sagara linked while the two assistant refs are not?
"around a watering hole" dab page.
isn't "wheel chair" normally one word?
"Royal Families" no caps needed.
"attending included Charlize Theron (actress),[" odd wording and no need for (actress).
same, no need for tennis player, basketball player, unless you want to introduce them in the sentence. I dislike the parenthetical bit.
" a free kick " link.
"then picked up the loose ball, " not literally...
"Stekelenberg prevented this" he intercepted? would be better than the "this".
"Kuyt picked up the ball" not literally...
"was able to deflect his" -> "deflected his".
"into the side netting. On" overlinked.
It's a glossary link. — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"also receiving one" perhaps "also being shown the yellow card..."
"was claimed by" caught?
"and crossed the ball" overlinked.
"and on 58 minutes" and two minutes later (perhaps?)
"his shot and was also" the shot was offside? perhaps "missed his shot although he was deemed to ..."?
"deemed to be offside.[56] Spain" overlinked.
"and on 70 minutes" similar to above, maybe "and three minutes later"?
"had their best chance thus far" [according to whom?]
Actually I don't think anyone said it directly. I was reading between the lines of the Grauniad report. Chopped. — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"following a one-two with" overlinked.
"was unmarked " link for "mark"?
"later, Fàbregas, who" first mention, Cesc and link.
"end of normal time" regular?
"FaFàbregas" marvellous typo.
"made a pair of " two.
"either side of" mildly confusing, did they make two subs, each side of half-time, or one sub before and one sub after?
I've just removed "two" altogether, which should make it more clear
"Spanish wall and" link to gloss.
"[47][63]" put those refs in a table caption.
Table should have row and col scopes too.
"They also became the" who?
"Spain's World Cup victory. Spain had" repetitive.
Link kit.
"guard of honor" is this article in Brit or US Eng?
"Spain captain Iker Casillas " link captain, and you've already linked Iker, so just unlinked surname.
"FIFA president" article for this.
I suppose, but is a link to it really necessary here? It's a fairly self-explanatory title and those who really need to know can always get to it through Blatter's article. I'll link to it if you insist, though. — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"questiongin" typo.
"captain Giovanni van Bronckhorst and" overlinked.
"Order of Oranje-Nassau " Orange?
"Renowned German footballer Franz Beckenbauer criticised" I don't think you need "Renowned" but if you want context for him then perhaps mention his successes with Germany?
"was negative and positive criticism" mixed?
"FIFA estimated" overlinked.
Non-breaking spaces check again here.
What happened to the Netherlands in Euro 2012?

Just the refs to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, this version applies...

Ref 1, ref 6, ref 85: just publisher = FIFA will suffice, no need for the expanded version nor fifa.com.
Ref 4: Can link Bleacher Report (which Wikipedia doesn't italicise).
Ref 9: RSSSF italics or not?
Ref 10: don't link 11v11 but you could link AFS Enterprises to the Association of Football Statisticians?
Ref 14: BBC Sport? (like ref 19?)
Ref 22: +The for NYT.
Ref 30, ref 35, ref 39, ref 56, ref 59: spaced hyphen... run the script.
Ref 32: +The for DT.
Ref 36, ref 38, ref 60, ref 89: consistent italics or no for BBC Sport.
Ref 44, ref 46, ref 48, ref 50: the->The and link.
Ref 45: link Indy.
Ref 51: link Algemeen Dagblad. And it's a work.
Ref 52, ref 54: missing work/publication details.
Removed anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 53, ref 55: Link Marca (and it's a work).
Ref 62: previously was Sky Sports and no BSkyB.
Ref 66: this is a footnote, not a reference.
Ref 68: in BritEng, it's Encyclopædia Britannica.
Ref 70: Wikipedia italicises Guinness World Records.
Ref 72: no need for website title in reference title, and previously was just ESPN.
Ref 73: link JT.
Ref 74: link Grauniad.
Ref 75: what makes the blog RS?
Improved. And the figure was seemingly 700,000 across the whole canal system, rather than 200,000 which was in the museum square.
Ref 76: tagged as permadead.
Replaced. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 77: was just ESPN earlier.
Ref 78: Link Goal.com as you did in one of the much earlier refs.
Ref 79: isn't that Deutsche Welle?
Ref 80: RS?
Removed. The other two cover it anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 81, ref 82, ref 86: link Bleacher Report (not in italics here).
Ref 83: is that Today?
Ref 84: Link Yahoo!.

That's all I have on refs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've dealt with all your points in the review, both the prose and refs. All the above actioned, with some of them commented upon above. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]