Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 November 2020 [1].

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About a year ago 22 women kicked a ball around on a field in London. This short article describes what happened. I have not been able to find images of the match with the right rights, but what is there now is at least relevant. I'm looking forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

If there are no images of the match with the right rights, there may be a case for a fair-use image
Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lee Vilenski

I think whilst this is a decent article it falls quite short of our criteria for Featured articles. There is some unsourced information, but mostly it is missing much of an overview and background for the match, and is a little casual in prose. There's a few MOS issues, as well as things such as authors for newspapers not being credited.

The article's lede uses some jargon terms like "involements" and "consolation goal", and the rest of the article relies on the information from the lede, rather than cite the information there.

I think this is a bit too much information required to be fixed within a FAC process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you open to setting a deadline, say Sunday, and then judge progress? In my previous successful FACs I have always been responsive. My last nomination had fundamental issues with sourcing, so I retracted the nomination instantly, but here I believe I can improve the article with your guidance swiftly enough. For this football match I misjudged the amount of background material needed, but surely this is not too hard to fix, with plenty of sources available.

Would you mind pointing out the unsourced info? I fail to see it at the moment. I've added the missing names of authors of newspaper articles, where possible. I've removed jargon from the lead. I shall address MOS:NUM shortly. Under your guidance I believe it can be done, but of course, I shall retract if you disagree.Edwininlondon (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that we require a significant amount more to be written. I'm happy to objectively review a piece which has flaws, in an attempt to get it to FAC quality, but in this case there are paragraphs of work to be added. As Harrias said, you should be able to read the article without including the lede, and it make sense. Then, the info in the lede needs to be directly cited in the body. There's a few bullet pointed items such as rules and "records", which should be written in prose. There's also some MOS:FLAG issues, and the lede image caption need work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hereby retract the nomination and will go through peer review first. Thank you for your guidance. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: nominator has withdrawn, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Harrias

I concur with Lee Vilenski, the article assumes a lot of knowledge. When I review at FA, I read the body of the article before reading the lead; so in this case, I have started with "Arsenal finished the previous season season as league champions, while Bristol City had finished in sixth place." There is no indication of which league the article is talking about, nor that it is talking about the ladies teams. There is also no time-frame set: when is "the previous season"? The next sentence addresses part of this issue, but it is the wrong way around to present information. There are some MOS:NUM issues regarding comparable numbers ("..one point behind leaders Chelsea and level with Manchester City on 18 points.." should be "one point" and "eighteen points".) The prose in general is a little sub-par for FA, ("..with the home team emerging..", "..played his team in a 3-4-3 formation..", "..both teams were without injured players on their squad and could play to their full strength.". I would recommend withdrawing this and going through a peer review to seek further input and improvements; FAC isn't the venue for that. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a typical article name for a match? I agree that the article should be withdrawn and submitted to WP:PR, where the issues can be worked through will less time pressure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is for a non-cup final. See Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United and Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A more similar aeticle would be Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C. due to it being notable for the amount of goals scored. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 21:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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