Wikipedia:Peer review/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive1

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

When I put this article up at FAC, reviewers felt it was not good enough yet and suggested a peer review first, before bringing it back. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive1. I have made quite a few changes already. I have added info to the Background and Aftermath sections. Not being a native speaker I always need help on prose. I would appreciate any help to get the article in such a shape that it is likely to pass at FAC next time. Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And please consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kosack

Infobox

Normally these articles list where the referee hails from, which would be Durham in Conley's case here. Also worth adding to the match details section. [1]
Done

Lead

I'm not sure the "eighth-round match" part is really necessary. It's not a common term to be basing matches on round in league football in my experience, certainly not in British football with fixtures being played on all days of the week in modern times.
Removed
Include Doncaster's full name.
Looking at a few FAs, including Cardiff City F.C., it seems that shorter names are used. In Cardiff's case, I see Portsmouth and Wrexham instead of Portsmouth F.C. and Wrexham A.F.C., or their actual full names Portsmouth Football Club. I suspect your suggestion is Doncaster Belles instead of just Doncaster, right? Are you ok with what I did with Bristol's name? At first use I spell out its full name. This is not what I see in FAs about the men's teams, but I really want to stress that this is a women's game. On subsequent mentions I shorten it to Bristol. Same with Arsenal Women Football Club. But it gets very tedious if I add Women to each club's first mention. After the first paragraph we don't need to say that anymore. Okay you think?
Link relegation to Promotion and relegation.
Done
Link goal difference.
Done
"Miedema became the 2019–20 FA WSL top scorer with sixteen goals", did she overtake someone with her six goals here? Otherwise became reads a little oddly to me, perhaps simply "ended the campaign as the..."
Done

Background

Link goal difference again, first use outside the lead.
Done

Summary

"between Arsenal and Bristol", this is probably unnecessary, it's been established by now who was playing.
Done
The days of the week are generally not required when including a date.
Done
"According to BBC Sport neither team had injured players", this reads a little oddly and, if it's based on pre-match build up, it may be better off in the background section. However, when I checked the source for clarification, I couldn't seem to see anything in there along these lines, unless I'm missing it?
It is my interpretation of the BBC's "with both teams at full strength in the league." How about I end the Background section with this: Both squads were at full strength prior to the game, reporting no injured players.
"First Evans set up Miedema to score 8–0", sentence doesn't quite work with the "score 8-0" part I think. A little expansion on the goal perhaps to flesh it out a little?
I did. Have a look.
Although I don't think it's a general rule per se, you're likely to get requests for the refs to be in numerical order. For example, 20 and 18 are reversed here.
Done
to send Arsenal to double figures > into double figures?
Done
"Bristol was awarded a late penalty", you've used the plural up until now for the clubs, best to stick to one style.
Done

Details

Why only five subs for Arsenal?
I don't know why the BBC only lists 5. But so does the FA, so probably true.
The ordering of the squad lists are inconsistent. Bristol's starting side is ordered by shirt number, but Arsenal's is by position. Bristol's bench is also different from the rest.
I'm stuck. I now have followed the order the BBC has used in their line-up. For both teams. But the positions are now all mixed up. And actually, the sources do not give these positions. I think it is better to get rid of them altogether. Which solves the next 2 points as well...
There is also some discrepancy with the text, as the summary mentions a 3-4-3 for Arsenal and a 4-2-3-1 for Bristol. Yet here it appears more like a 5-3-2/3-5-2 for Arsenal and a 5-2-3 (?) formation for Bristol.
The last few match FACs I've seen have asked for sources for the players' positions.

Records

Worth noting what Ji So-yun's total was for the non-British scoring record?
Yes. Had to do a bit of math, but got there.

Reactions

"describing Miedema's as", > Miedema's performance?
Done

I've had a few read through and picked out a few points above. I'm a little unsure over the title of the article, but I can see you've started a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL about it. If you're unsure over any prose points, you could make a request for a copyedit at the WP:GOCE which can come in handy at times. Comparing this to the version at the closing of the FAC, this is in much better shape already. Kosack (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much. I'm glad you think I have taken it in the right direction already. I shall request a copyedit. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SandyGeorgia: I can't find any nits to pick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SandyGeorgia, for reviewing. Much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]