Talk:Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this sometime in the next couple days. Wizardman 11:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The match is often said to have instigated the rivalry between Arsenal and Manchester United, which carried on through the 1990s and 2000s." Having this and the following note in the background section feels odd. It's written well, but shouldn't the post-rivalry boom be in the aftermath section, and the background part be rewritten accordingly?
- I'll leave this one for the original author to deal with. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have changed order. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Arsenal arrived at Old Trafford on the back of an 22-match unbeaten run" either 'a 22-match..' or 'an unbeaten..'
- Changed to "a 22-match unbeaten run". – Pee Jay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Brian McClair blasted the penalty over the crossbar " blasted might be on the journaly side rather than the encyclopedic.
- Changed to "hit the penalty". – Pee Jay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Neil Webb deputised for club captain Bryan Robson" can this be clarified? I imagine if i understood football more I'd have no problem with this, but as is I only partially get what I think it's saying.
- Done a comprehensive rewording. – Pee Jay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Michael Thomas was declared fit to start in midfield and David O'Leary travelled as part of the squad.[15]" in a vacuum this doesn't sound important, but i imagine it is due to its inclusion; can this (and possibly the previous sentence) be added on a bit?
- I don't have access to the original source, so I can't add to this. Imagine the author was struggling for content about the Arsenal team selection and this was the best he could do. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - PeeJay is correct, there was little team news to find on Arsenal. Removed the O'Leary bit because he never featured in the match -- just an unused sub. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" proceeded to kick out at Winterburn and Limpar" a bit jargony. The summary I could follow at least despite it being a bit heavy in that regard, but this phrase i'm not quite getting.
- I don't really understand this phrase either as I don't remember the brawl in detail, but I've changed "kicked out" to "retaliated". – Pee Jay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ferguson ordered his players to the training ground, where they watched the match." did they watch film of the match, or watch something after the fact? A bit confusing as worded.
- I imagine they watched a recorded broadcast of the match. Not sure what else they could possibly have watched. – Pee Jay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A more general question that may be showing ignorance, but I'm curious: how was Arsenal so far behind Liverpool in points if they only lost one game all season? Was it just the way schedules were designed, or was it a part of the points structure i'm not understanding?
- In the Football League (and practically all other football leagues across the world), teams are awarded three points for a win and one for a draw (or a tie, in North American vernacular). Liverpool won more and drew fewer games than Arsenal, so they benefited by an extra two points for every extra win. – Pee Jay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changes so far look good. All I need, aside from the couple things deferred to the author, is a copyedit and de-jargoning of the game summary, just to make sure it's more fully readable for someone who stumbles across it. Wizardman 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. I've combed through parts of the match summary where I think suffers from jargon and removed irrelevant bits. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; reads much better now. Only hiccup I saw was the Winterburn being tended to issue that you guys had already hatnoted; i just removed it until it can be noted better if it's importance. The article now passes as a GA. Wizardman 22:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation etc.

Re the insistence of User:PeeJay2K3 in adding back flag icons I removed on several occasions, those flag icons are not relevant and are distracting. The international composition of the teams has zip to do with a bust-up in what is a purely local match. MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons says:

Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality (and it is not an exception to #Avoid flag icons in infoboxes). Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. (bolding is mine)

You are expected to abide by guidelines and not ignore them merely because you disagree; reverting correctly applied guidelines is considered disruptive behaviour. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that guideline forbids the use of flags in this article. Yes, it says that flags should not indicate players' nationality in a non-sporting sense, but that's not what they're doing; they're showing what national teams those players are/were eligible for. That is not forbidden. – Pee Jay 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]