Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/GA1
GA Review[edit]
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Failing this based on cleanup banners that have not been addressed. When the Controversy section was tagged as WP:UNDUE (December 2022), it had 3,251 words of readable prose and the editor tagging it highlighted that it needed "some heavy trimming down". The opposite has happened as the section now totals 3,950 words. This article should summarise the controversies and the reaction to them, the level of detail provided is more appropriate for List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies and the related articles on specific controversies.
The Security section has been tagged as needing expanding although it has been suggested on the talk page that it could be included in a Preparations section/article. If the information already provided is all that is available, I would agree that it is not necessary to have a section dedicated to security and that inclusion in a Preparations section would be more appropriate.
There is also one {{update after}} tag and one {{citation needed}} tag.
I have concerns regarding WP:OR as well. From the edit history, the Tournament ranking section with the citation needed tag appears contentious and has been highlighted as potential OR before. The Discipline section is also unsourced. A source to the regulations is provided but no source for individual suspensions and the matches to which they applied has been provided.
A number of bare URLs which do not appear in the list of references have been used to cite match results and standings tables, these should be updated per WP:CITE to full citations.
Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- No drama, if it's alright with you, I'll just put my comments after this. You are well within your rights to quickfail the article, although I don't think there's all that much that needed doing (from the above at least). I've gone ahead and merged security into the venues section. It's important that we note that countries gave police (and other) forces to the event, although the actual security at the event is the same as any other event of this size, so doesn't need its own section (or an expansion). I don't think a preparations section is required, as the whole of the rest of the article is about how the event was created and how it went on.
I've removed the final standings table (as I've done probably 50 times now), as the consensus is that it should not be created unless FIFa actually creates such a table.
I'm just going through and fixing/removing the few uncited items now. I don't think the summary section is underdone, it covers pretty much every match, and full summaries of each match should exist in the sub-articles (see 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B for an example).
As for the controversy (which I suspect is the main reason for the failure, which is fair), it's a bit long, but I don't think it is specifically far too long, mainly due to the sheer amount of press and longevity of the issues surrounding the event. Several press releases have deemed it "the most controversial sporting event of all time", and thus having a section of a larger weight of the whole article makes a lot of sense. However, I shall go through the prose and clean it up a bit before renominating. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, that's a good solution for the security section. You've done a lot of good work on the article so far which is much appreciated, good luck when it comes to renomination. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was aware it would be a difficult one to promote. I've done a significant cull of the controversy, and I think that about covers it. I'll have another read through and renom later. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, that's a good solution for the security section. You've done a lot of good work on the article so far which is much appreciated, good luck when it comes to renomination. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)