Talk:2001 FA Charity Shield

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 FA Charity Shield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments a nice article, so comments are really just polishing.

• Lead has four paragraphs, somewhat larger than I would expect for an article of this size.
  • I see your point, but I feel like I can't remove one as they sum up each section of the article. I could merge the last one into the third one? NapHit (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I think, per WP:LEAD we shouldn't be looking at more than three paras here, so whatever you think best. Your suggestion is a good one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Okie dokie, lead is now three paras. NapHit (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• " annual English football match" I'm not sure about English, after all Swansea or Cardiff could play this match. Also maybe worth accentuating the fact it's "association football".
• You should link to the old Wembley Stadium (1923) here.
• 19th, 21st, fifth, should use common all numerals or all words in a single sentence where this sort of thing is comparable.
• Perhaps skip detail like "as they missed out due to their respective injuries and international commitments." out of the lead, it's something that didn't really define the event so can be included later, but not necessarily in a summary of the event.
• "through debutant van" you already said he was making his debut.
• "refused to get carried away" not sure this is encyclopedic in tone.
• Background links Wembley twice, yes to the different stadia, but it's possibly confusing, so perhaps for the second one you could include "new" in the link?
• 10, four, six... same comment as above.
• "Before the match... roof... match ... roof". Touch repetitive.
• "Manchester United lined up in a 4–3–2–1 formation" but the graphic in the Details section shows them as 4-4-2...
  • I don't know why the Guardian gave that formation, because it's completely nonsensical. Sure, Denis Irwin could play right-back and Gary Neville sometimes played in the centre, and even Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes played attacking midfield every now and again, but the 4-4-1-1 was typical of Manchester United in the early 2000s, with Scholes playing off RvN. – PeeJay 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • What's the best way to proceed TRM? Maybe Ferguson experimented with that formation for this match @PeeJay2K3:? Seeing as that seems to be the only ref we have for the formations, we should probably go with it. NapHit (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • This article by Daniel Taylor on the eve of the match is a good background read on Ferguson's formations. As for the match itself, The Times states United's formation was 4-4-1-1, and so does Glenn Moore in The Independent. But Lacey and Henry Winter's match reports go with 4-3-2-1. I'd probably go with Winter's as his account actually justifies why United were set up that way. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Interesting that sources would go with different formations. You'd think none of them had watched the game! Anyway, I've found the source I used for the line-up graphic: the October 2001 issue of "United" magazine. They've quite plainly gone for a 4-4-1-1. – PeeJay 18:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
        • The BBC report listed in the article also seems to go for a 4-4-1-1; I doubt they'd list Scholes after Giggs if it was a 4-3-2-1, since that would imply Scholes was playing to the left of Giggs, and since Giggs was a left-sided player, that wouldn't make much sense. – PeeJay 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you think the graphic represents that, it looks like plain 4-4-2 to me, is there any way to make the graphic correspond to a 4-4-1-1 formation? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
            • I think it does, yes. The 4-4-1-1 can be represented in two ways, from what I've seen – either with the supporting player directly behind a central striker, or "just off" the main striker as in this graphic. – PeeJay 19:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
              • Perhaps blame Sky but always see 4-4-1-1 as the two banks then one player off another, diagonal. Otherwise I can't distinguish it from 4-4-2. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
                • I can shift Scholes further back if you like, but he's very definitely "off" Van Nistelrooy. – PeeJay 19:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
                  • Definitely, and I recall that, and of course I can't recall seeing Scholes out-and-out up front, so tweaking him back a shade would be top drawer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
                    • How does the current version suit? – PeeJay 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
                      • I like it. Thanks for doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Fabian should be Fabien.
• Silvestre is not linked first time.
• Post match section relinks a number of individuals and reinserts their first names again, this isn't necessary.
• "aged just 11 and 13" remove "just".
• Compare ref 7 and ref 13 and ref 18 for how you present BBC sources. Consistency please!
• "Rec. Sport. Soccer. Statistics. Foundation" is actually "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation"

That's all, so I'll put it on hold for a while. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @The Rambling Man:, I've addressed your comments and left a comments above. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy with this now, so I'll promote to GA. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)