Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 FIFA World Cup Final/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2022 [1].

1998 FIFA World Cup Final

Nominator(s): — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1998 edition of the World's most important football (soccer) match, the FIFA World Cup Final. It featured the host nation, France, in their first final, against the previous champions Brazil. The pre-match headlines were dominated by the initial omission of Brazil's star player Ronaldo, only for him to later end up playing... but as a shadow of his usual self. Several conspiracy theories later emerged, but it remains something of a mystery to this day... As usual, any and all comments gratefully received, and I'll be happy to do reciprocal reviews for anyone who asks. — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review can you put a source for the lineup in the image description for File:BRA-FRA 1998-07-12.svg ? (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I've added a source (against the line-up header for both France and Brazil, as well as in the image description on Commons), and also tweaked the image to make it match exactly what the source depicts. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

Lead

"final match... The match" could mix it up a little.
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"as the holders" is that 100% clear to non-experts?
Amended. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"one defeat, after which they defeated" repetitive.
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could link "round of 16" in the lead.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also "kick-off"?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And corner.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"slotting the ball" pretty sure this might get called out by non-football readers as "jargon" or too "in-universe".
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any consequences of the final, reactions, subsequent tournament performances for either side, etc. which could be added to expand the final para of the lead.
Added. — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"as did Brazil as the" as ... as... bit clunky.
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"an 80,000-capacity" so why did the final only have 75,000 spectators?
I've had a search around, and I can't find any direct evidence. Even in current times it seems the capacity is 80,000 but 75,000 tickets are sold. No explanation why though. — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The match ball for this..." this is less significant than the previous performances of he finalists so I'd put it as the final para of this section.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"having been involved ... having been eliminated" repetitive.
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"by the Czech Republic. Their midfielder Zinedine Zidane" -> France's midfielder...
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route to the final

"were already confirmed as winners" did this impact their team selection for Norway?
Added. — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"before Patrick ... before the end" before .... before repeat.
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with the golden goal rule in effect" I hate to be the first person to say it, is this worth a footnote explaining the principle of "next scorer wins" here....??
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Brazil kicked first and the first five penalties were all scored," and this could be misconstrued by those who aren't aware that penalties are taken alternately....
Clarified. — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"France began their campaign..." first two sentences of this section start with "France..." bit repetitive.
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did Zidane get suspended for his red card in the Saudi game?
Clarified. — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Blanc's GG was the first ever in the FIFA World Cup, worth noting?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points so far... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose yes, sorry. I'm on half-term with kids etc, so don't have much time but perhaps at the weekend? If there's a mad rush then that's fine, but I'd rather that I do a decent review and that Amakuru gets a chance to get this one promoted? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, family comes first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More, at last, from me:

Pre-match

"An amateur who worked" do you mean he used to be an amateur referee? This is a touch confusing for me to parse.
Added "referee" after amateur. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The assistant referees were" were they called assistant referees back then? Or just linesmen?
A search of newspapers.com reveals usage going back at least as far as 1996, so it seems fair to use that more modern terminology even if maybe it wasn't the most common at the time? — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in his stead" feels a little whimsical, maybe just "place" rather than stead?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Reporters for the BBC and other media received the news shortly after 8 pm had " missing a word here I think, either "who" after "media".
Changed to "and had..." — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"At 8:18," be consistent with the "pm" inclusion.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"afternoon of the match" I would say "afternoon of the final".
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Match

"an estimated global audience " television?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"at the time of kick-off" link.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"a long ball was played" you know the drill, what's a "long ball"? I guess you mean "the ball was passed a long distance" or whatever, but you know there's a cadre of reviewers here who would simply fall off their chair if you expected them to know what a "long ball" was.......
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could link goal kick for the aforementioned horrified audience, but then again they might well ask you to describe what a "goal kick" is here, because to them it might well be a "kick at the goal" (or, in my youth when I played against USAF servicemen abroad, they'd shout "SHOOT THE GOAL", kinda like "GET IN THE HOLE" kind of thing...).
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"passed it into the centre" the centre of the pitch?
Reworded. It's not really the centre of the pitch, as that would be a long way behind the penalty area. Just said "to his right" which seems to convey the same message. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"was able to punch his " ->" punched his"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"shown a yellow card " link.
Linked further up, with "booking" changed to "yellow card" there. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have "four minutes later" but previously "On 5 minutes"?
Well, this is a deliberate consistency. All times within the match are given as digits, while relative times (five minutes later etc.) are given in words. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"yellow card four minutes later for a diving challenge on Rivaldo.[70] Four minutes before" maybe make the second "four minutes" an absolute.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"sent a long ball upfield" see above. The horror.
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I normally include all substitutions as "important aspects of the event" kind of thing, e.g. not seeing Desailly's substitution being noted in the prose?
Desailly was not substituted, he was sent off 😀 - and that is mentioned in the prose. — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"receiving a through ball from" no chance on earth that our "non-football readers" will even begin to decipher this I'm afraid.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We normally directly cite Statistics in the header of the table.
done. — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match

"win the competition in their own country" could this not be tighter as "win the competition as hosts"?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"For Brazil, it was only the second time" ->" It was only the second time Brazil..."
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link Uruguay v Brazil (1950 FIFA World Cup) instead of the overall tournament, and pipe it appropriately.
The match is already linked earlier in the sentence. I've unlinked the tournament altogether, as it isn't needed. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"loss in the World Cup until their 7–1 loss to" loss/loss. Perhaps make one a "defeat"?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Juan Antonio Samaranch" seems to be oddly linked, just his name is fine.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"during his speech" I guess you're assuming we know that the French president makes a Bastille Day speech?
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"emerged. This included an allegation" I would merge, "emerged, including an allegation"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"eliminated at that stage" quick repeat of "stage".
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's content reviewed. I can take a look at references if that's not already been by anyone else, who would no doubt be far more competent than me? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been a change to an attendance of 80,000 yet the "statistics" source clearly says 75,000...? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Yeah, there actually seems to be a slight discrepancy here. This "FIFA API" source does say 80,000, and that's the basis on which it was changed to 80,000. More sources do seem to say 75,000 though, including 11v11 and RSSSF, so I've restored that figure and added extra sourcing. I've removed "official" though, as it's not clear what the official figure really is, or whether there even is one. Let me know if anything else needs doing w.r.t. this. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been a while, happy that my concerns have been addressed. We can't very well explain the rules of association football within this article, so the vitriol that brought down these kinds of articles in the past is a genuine waste of time, glad to see it's subsided significantly and allowed good faith editors to crack on with making excellent articles, like this one. So, glad to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

There were a lot of comments in the press about Blanc's red card in the semifinal; it was clear from video footage that Bilić was faking his injury. This article is about the final, not the semifinal, but given that it meant Blanc could not play I think a mention of the controversy is warranted.

I made quite a few copyedits; most were minor but please check to see if you disagree with anything. The above is the only suggestion I have; the article is in excellent condition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: thanks for the review and copyedit. I've added a couple of sentences about the Blanc-Bilić incident on the semi-final. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

"The 1998 FIFA World Cup was the 17th edition of the World Cup, FIFA's football competition for national teams" - you specify men's in the lead but not here
Fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"where which they were beaten" - where which?
Fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"was labelled by former Brazilian Pelé" - pretty sure Pele is still Brazilian
Fixed, I've added "forward". — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The match ball for this game was" - was it the match ball for the whole tournament? If so, I would say that. If just for this game then it needs moving later, because otherwise you have a structure that essentially goes background to the whole tournament > specifics of the ball for the final > details of the earlier rounds > everything else about the final. which does not make chronological sense
Fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I got as far as the end of the Route to the final section, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from ChrisTheDude

"an in-swinging corner from the right taken by Emmanuel Petit" - no need to repeat his full name
Fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Guivarc'h was taken off, as Dechamps brought on Dugarry in his place" - Deschamps is spelt wrong, but surely it was the manager who brought on a sub, not Deschamps?
Good point. Changed to Jacquet. — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @ChrisTheDude:, I think I've looked at these points now. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, did you miss these recent comments? (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - @Amakuru:, if you fancy reviewing another football article, your feedback would be most gratefully received here (if you don't fancy it or don't have the time, no problem at all) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Cited sources shouldn't be repeated in External links
Removed. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"16th edition of the quadrennial football competition" - source? Don't see this in the text
Sorry, there was a typo in the "Background" section. It said 17th, but now amended to 16th. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN1: the source indicates the primary authors are the "Editors"; the list given here are secondary authors only
Apologies, I'm not clear what the error is and what you want me to correct here, so please could you advise, @Nikkimaria:. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per here the primary contributors to this article are "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica". So you could either cite just them as a group author, or cite them as the first author and list the other ones after - your call. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - I have amended the cite so that "The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica", which I think is what you're suggesting as an option above, and seems preferable to listing out the lengthy list of editors which might not even be complete. Just noting though, this has now raised a citation template warning which links to Help:CS1_errors#generic_name, saying that we shouldn't have used a "generic placeholder", presumably because it contains the word "editor". Just checking if this is a problem, but if not then I think I'm done with your issues. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest implementing the accept-as-written fix outlined there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done, thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN3: it appears that this source includes contributed chapters - the particular chapter cited should be reflected in the citation
I don't have immediate access to this, but should hopefully be able to look at an actual copy of the book by Wednesday this week. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: just noting that I never did manage to get a look at the book, so I've found an alternative reference for this assertion. THanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN9 is missing work
Fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes FN27 a high-quality reliable source?
I have replaced it with an alternative source. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you credit Newspapers.com for citations to it, other times not - should be consistent
Fixed. All credited. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN38: missing page number, and is a clip available?
Added both. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether BBC Sport is italicized and/or linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how does this one seem now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point outstanding above, otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - This appears to potentially have been addressed; are you comfortable with signing off on this now? Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.