Talk:Battle of Old Trafford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes the quick pass/fail criteria, and I will look at in more detail section by section. Harrias (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

First issue for me is the title, and the opening statement. "The "Battle of Old Trafford" is a name used by the British press..." which you then cite to The Times. For this name to be used, I'd expect at least one more area of the British press to be cited here to show it is a commonly used name for the match, and not just something The Times alone coined it.
- This is now sourced to three different UK newspapers: the Times, the Sun and the Independent.
"0-0" and other instances throughout the article, per WP:DASH should be replaced with an En-dash.
- Done.
"...something that had only been achieved once before in English football, by Preston North End in 1888-89." I would prefer if this were cited, as it is an important claim, and per WP:LEAD, information should not be present in the lead that isn't also in the main article content.
- Sourced, and I've slotted the fact into the "Aftermath" section.
"The match is memorable for the sending-off of Arsenal captain..." In your opinion, it is memorable for that; try to find another way to describe the key events in the match without using the term memorable.
- Re-worded.
Wikilink "second bookable offence" to something that would let a non-football fan know what it means.
- Linked to Misconduct (association football)#Sending-off offences (red card.
"...controversial decision..." Provide a source that describes it as controversial, otherwise it just seems to be controversial in your opinion, a United fan might not agree it is!
- Still looking for one that specifically describes the penalty as controversial. The BBC source describes Keown's challenge that led to the penalty as "innocuous", but if I can't find a better source, I'll re-word the statement.
Wikilink "penalty", an ice hockey fan might think someone is going to the penalty box!
- Linked to penalty kick.
As you use "FA" later in the article, it might be best to put "...by The Football Association (FA) for their..."
- Done.
"...and Arsenal were forced to pay fines." As I read it in the Aftermath section, Arsenal paid a £175,000 fine, while their players paid a variety, as did two United players. So I would say that Arsenal paid a fine, not fines. Maybe just say that Arsenal and x number of playes were forced to pay fines?
- Done.

I'll have a look through the rest of the article later this evening (UK). Harrias (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. Hope you enjoy the rest of the article. – Pee Jay 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to get to the rest of the article tonight unfortunately, but I will give it my priority. Good work on your changes so far! Harrias (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"However, he rivalry" should be "However, the rivalry"
- Done.
"McClair got his revenge" how did McClair get his revenge?
- Added info based on the source already provided.
Viera and Keane should be linked in the first usage (end of the first paragraph) and not in the third paragraph.
- Fixed.
"Martin Keown received a £5,000 fine for an incident with Ruud van Nistelrooy." As well as requiring a citation, this could do with expanding upon; what was the incident, would it lead to the possibility of vN trying to 'get back' at Keown?
- Apparently this never actually happened, or at least I can't find any mention of a previous incident between RvN and Keown.

Match

Summary

No citations at all; would like to see at least one for the section, and ideally more. Particularly for phrases such as that starting the second paragraph, "The match was characterised by petty fouls and yellow cards handed out by referee Steve Bennett." Call me touchy, as I'm a referee myself; but 'petty' seems an opinion, and as such I want to see a source saying it, not an encyclopedia alone.
- I'll see what I can do, give me a couple of days.
  - I can't find a source which explicity states the nature of the fouls. Can you think of a better way of putting the point across? I have utilised a source from the Independent used elsewhere in the article for that section. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source you provide is about a match played in 2006, and although it references the 2003 match, it certainly doesn't provide sources for a match summary. PeeJay said he was working on something with regards to this section, I don't know how much or how relevant it is, but I'm willing to wait a few days to see. Harrias (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sentences: "As several matches involving Manchester United and Arsenal in recent years had been, this match was competitive. Arsenal came into the match at the top of the Premier League, holding an unbeaten record that stretched back to the end of the previous season. Manchester United were in second place in the table, but they had already lost one match that season, against Southampton." This sounds more like background to me; should it possibly be in the previous section?
- Moved.
40 yards, per WP:MOSNUM requires a non-breaking space between the number and the measurement.
- Done.
"13th-minute", "90th minute" be consistent, I would prefer it without the hyphen personally.
- In the context it is written in, "a 13th-minute free-kick" is correct grammar, just as "in the 90th minute" is also correct.
"... goalkeeper Jens Lehmann received a yellow card for his protests." There isn't a yellow card symbol beside his name in the details section below.
- The BBC report states "Van Nistelrooy and Arsenal keeper Jens Lehmann were also shown yellow cards as players squared up to each other", but they don't list the Lehmann booking at the bottom of the page. Since no other sources record Lehmann as having been booked, I've removed the statement.
If possible, in addition to some more citations, I think this section could be expanded somewhat; though my review won't depend upon it.
- I'll try to expand on the review based on the print sources I have here, but the only video source I have focuses on the Giggs free-kick that hit the post, the Vieira sending-off and the Van Nistelrooy penalty, so I don't have much more to go on.
  - If the review does not depend on expansion I will leave it and possibly expand this section if I decided to go for Featured Article status. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I'm sorry it's taken so long, and I hope it's not too late, but I've finally managed to expand the match summary to the best of my ability. Good luck, guys. – Pee Jay 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details

Minutes are supplied for substitutions, and the cautions given to Keane, van Nistelrooy, and Viera; but none are given for the other cautions, are those times not recorded anywhere?
- I can only find times for the Keane, Vieira and Van Nistelrooy yellows. I think the Fortune, Ronaldo and Keown ones were shown after the final whistle, but I can't be sure.
Edu links to a disambiguation page; pipe it accordingly.
- Done.
Again, while the review doesn't depend on it, it might be nice to make the image an image map, and be able to get to the players article by clicking on the relevant place on the image. Just a thought.
- I don't know how to do that, but since all other pages use SVG formation images, I don't think it's much of a problem.

Aftermath

First section needs citations.
- Done.
"Lauren, Martin Keown, Patrick Vieira and Ray Parlour were all suspended for between one and four matches, much less than had been originally anticipated." Would it be worth discussing the original speculation regarding suspensions?
- Re-jigged the passage. Only Lauren escaped his maximum potential ban by a significant amount (he got four games when he could have got eight), while Ray Parlour got three games fewer than he could have, but had to pay a £10,000 fine.
There aren't inline citations for Lehmann and Cole's charges/fine.
- Done.
"Van Nistelrooy's penalty, therefore," Might it be worth reiterating, and saying "missed penalty"?
- Done.
It might also be an idea to add the result of the other league game between them that season, and clarify whether there was any trouble in that match.
- Done.
"dubbed the Battle of the Buffet." If it was dubbed Battle of the Buffet, why is the article called Battle of Old Trafford (2004)? Maybe something like "variously dubbed the Battle of the Buffet, the second Battle of Old Trafford, and simply The Battle of Old Trafford"? (I don't know if there are sources for all three, but I have heard it referred to by them all.
- Done.

References

On the whole pretty good, but some inconsistencies I'd like to see fixed:

"BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation)" is linked in 5, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18 & 19, but not in 4 & 10.
- Linked only the first usage.
6 has "The Observer (Guardian News and Media)", while 9 just has "The Guardian"
- Done.

Right, that's the rest of the article. I'll place the nomination on hold to give you some time to get them done. It is for the most part a good article though. Feel free to strike-through any of my original points that you fix. Harrias (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, mate. I've acted on most of them, and I'm too tired to do the rest right now. Give me a couple of days and I'll get it sorted! – Pee Jay 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have responded above. 03 md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]