Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Group B

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Table Sources

@

cn}} tag on every other article with an unsourced table? Please also note that the placement of your tag makes it appear that citations are needed in the prose, even though the prose is properly cited. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Please also note that the table for which you request citations is a subset of the table of all qualified teams that is already published. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:CALC or otherwise. For instance, we are stating the FIFA rankings at two different points, as well as each team's previous history of the event. I don't think it would be all that difficult to cite the rankings, which should just be two links to individual parts of the FIFA website (or otherwise), but I don't really know how we'd do a blanket citation for how each team has done previously at the event - unless you know of anything? I don't have any plans to start tagging a load of articles, but it is something that would need addressing in all similar tables. It isn't a case of saying that we haven't cited tables like these before, the information needs to be verifiable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Requiring citations in all tables like this would require a wholesale change of all the qualification and group tables throughout the entire
FIFA Men's World Rankings in the table header, as well as links to all the teams' pages, with all the listed information already cited. This is the first time I have seen ANYONE have a problem with how these tables are laid out, and you chose to tag only Group B. Why not all eight groups? Why not the complete table at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification? Why not the women's groups? Are we also going to go through and add citations to all the previous tournaments' series of articles? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You've just quoted one of the worst arguments that we have on this project...
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sometimes, the main reason why people don't try to fix things is because of the size of the issue as a whole, rather than trying to fix up articles. All of these things obviously need to be cited - we can't cite Wikipedia as a reference, so leaving a link to the article isn't good enough (which also doesn't show historical placements, so it's a bit moot). I'm a bit confused why you've said that me suggesting that we need to cite a table means we have to make wholesale changes. I wanted to fix up this page, and maybe I'll do some work on some of the other pages at a later date - I don't need to make these consistent; but, if it bothers you, feel free to tag all of the articles yourself. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
All a bit moot now, I've found a decent enough source. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate headings

Why do we have two headings with the same name for each match, in violation of

MOS:HEADINGS (For technical reasons, section headings should: Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place. Would it not be better to have each match summary in the same place as the match details- that seems much more logical to me? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

No, it should be in the summary section. It is much more logical to have uniterupted prose. I don't really know why we need subsection headers to the individual matches. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably have better terminology for the first match day and merge the Iran/England and Wales/USA sections. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the match day solution. Some similar articles have summaries under the match graphics, but then that duplicates the summary sub header anyway, and depending on the amount of prose, can negatively affect readability. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and just put the match scores, which makes a lot more sense from a prose POV, and also stops any issues with MOS:HEAD. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Group B/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unknown Temptation (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi there, I'm ready for my first GA review (I notice you have done many more!). Thankfully as this event is in living memory, it will not be too hard to evaluate. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Not sure if this is about prose or factuality, but the phrasing "Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, the nation's highest diplomat in Qatar" could be confusing. It suggests Blinken is like an ambassador or consul to Qatar, but I think it's trying to say he was the highest person on the United States presidential line of succession to be at the World Cup? I could not find the words "highest" or "senior" in the text. I think it's just safe enough to say Blinken's office, and anyone wanting more details can follow the link? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b. (
    lists
    )    :
    The lead is short but to the point and does not dwell on details. It mentions the closeness between three of the competing teams, and the conflict and controversy involving the fourth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed it as I don't think it's specifically important that no one outranked him. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section): Source 1 [1] is being used for the statements that the draw took place on 1 April and that teams were drawn from pots that were sorted by ranking. I can't see this in the source? However, the details are already in source 14 in the article if you could copy over the reference [2] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 38 [3] I can't find any mention of Peru, 1978, or worst? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    • Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "The United States team outplayed Wales in the first half, but in the second half Wales outshone them, being tactically better, particularly after introducing substitute Kieffer Moore". This isn't completely different to what the source says, but it's not exactly to the source either. There is no mention of "tactics" in the source, but this passage "It was a tale of two halves and Wales manager Rob Page made the key change at half-time when he replaced the ineffective Dan James with the taller Kieffer Moore, who was exactly what the side had been missing in the opening period." almost reflects the article text. But definitely, the source verifies the the US dominated the first half and the Welsh the second. Perhaps everything can stay except the clause about being tactically better Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the bit about tactics, as we shouldn't really say this in Wikipedia's voice regardless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A source would be recommended for the note about a sixth substitution due to concussion Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. Because it's a note I missed it. Apologies. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Source 49 does not verify that it was Iran's first win over a European nation at the World Cup. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a source that specifically says this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've only now noticed, the compromise "no discrimination" armband is mentioned in the caption and in the sources, but not in the text. That could be helpful Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      added Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b. (citations to
    reliable sources
    )    :
    All sources are reliable. The subject does not include major controversies that would require more authoritative sourcing than journalism. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    c. (OR):
    Not an issue. Match reports are brief and factual and align with what the sources were saying. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The succinct match reports mean that they do not closely resemble the sources. Quotations are brief and to the point. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    Could there be something added early on about manager/player reactions to the draw? We already have what pundits thought of it. Given that three of these countries speak the same language and are entwined in football, there would have been a lot said and it would set the scene of how each country was going into it. But it's OK if you don't want to stuff the page with quotations. There's also something more to be said about the fourth of those teams, Iran. Manager Queiroz supported player protests, then after Iran lost, he called protesters "not welcome". He took issue with the BBC for asking political questions in press conferences, [4], which the Guardian called "extraordinary". I understand if you don't want to swell the page with non-football, but as the lead and earlier sections mention the geopolitical aspect of the group, it's not too farfetched to include it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (focused):
    There is appropriate and succinct detail of qualification before the group. The match reports are enyclopedic rather than full newspaper reports: they mention key details such as the controversial major injury in the England-Iran game or the substitution in the Wales-USA game that the source attributed with changing the direction of the game. These reports would be digestible to fans of a passing interest and would remain understandable years into the future. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a piece on this during the first match. I'm not sure what the coaches/players say about the draw is all that important, unless they say something specific that I've not seen. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Match reports are written in a way that reflects the sources. The non-football elements of this group are mentioned in a factual matter that is not taking sides; all opinions are clearly attributed to relevant figures. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Naturally there were a lot of edits in November and December and dispute between editors on how exactly to sum up six 90-minute episodes in an encylopedic way. The page is stable since then. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Photographs come from an Iranian press agency which licences its images for such use. There are also self-made diagrams. No concerns. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions are fine. Kane image is relevant to the armband discussion. The Wales Iran caption is brief, but that's fine, it's not crying out to have the names of the players. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    All in all this is a great article that gets key information across. It is well-written and does not fall into the swamp of overdetail that affects articles on recent events. I only have the comments I made earlier, some about verification and some about potential further information, which may or may not be relevant to the article in your opinion. Thank you Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Thanks for the review. Full disclosure, I am on holiday at the moment without the best internet access. I shall endeavour to pick up these items, but if you could keep this open until at least a day or two after I get back (I'm back a week on Wednesday), I would appreciate it, in case I need to do a deep dive for any sources. Thank you. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Lee Vilenski! Given your extenuating circumstances, I will leave this open as long as it takes for you to come back and finish it. Please enjoy yourself, you have earned this holiday time! Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've made some changes, let me know what you think Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work. I just fiddled with the code on the new references (I know it's picky to do anything except basic copyediting on a phone) and now I'm passing this Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do 90% of my editing on my phone believe it or not. Thanks for the review, definitely made the article better :). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_B&oldid=1196910310"