Misplaced Pages

Talk:Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:40, 11 April 2014 editGnorman Gnome (talk | contribs)561 edits →Flags deliberately hiding the information from readers?: reply to Confucius← Previous edit Revision as of 19:20, 11 April 2014 edit undoGnorman Gnome (talk | contribs)561 edits edit revertedNext edit →
Line 24: Line 24:


The question asked by ] – "how do readers know they must hover over each flag" – is about twenty years out of time. People of all ages nowadays know how to use their mice. Okay? They are not stupid. Graphics and images and links are abundant in the internet and people hovering their mice to get a connection or a bit of info is second nature. And anyway, as PeeJay says, this should all be discussed at WP:FOOTY as the arguments raised are generic. ] (]) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The question asked by ] – "how do readers know they must hover over each flag" – is about twenty years out of time. People of all ages nowadays know how to use their mice. Okay? They are not stupid. Graphics and images and links are abundant in the internet and people hovering their mice to get a connection or a bit of info is second nature. And anyway, as PeeJay says, this should all be discussed at WP:FOOTY as the arguments raised are generic. ] (]) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Please note that I have reverted the latest edit by ], again removing the flags, because no consensus has been reached in this discussion and I think he should wait until this has been achieved before trying to impose his view on the article. I note that he has performed what amount to four edit reverts yesterday and today. I think this is out of order given that the matter is currently subject to discussion and I believe he should be patient. ] (]) 19:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:20, 11 April 2014

Good articlesManchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 7, 2014.
WikiProject iconFootball: England / Arsenal / Manchester United / Season GA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Arsenal task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the season article task force.
A fact from Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2014/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990).
Misplaced Pages

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

  • "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?
  • "Arsenal arrived at Old Trafford on the back of an 22-match unbeaten run" either 'a 22-match..' or 'an unbeaten..'
  • "Brian McClair blasted the penalty over the crossbar " blasted might be on the journaly side rather than the encyclopedic.
  • "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.
  • "Michael Thomas was declared fit to start in midfield and David O'Leary travelled as part of the squad." 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)
      • 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)
  • " 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". – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "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.
  • 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. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)

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

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  13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
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. – PeeJay 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags deliberately hiding the information from readers?

I, for one, have no idea what countries those splotches of bright colours refer to. Could someone explain why readers are denied this information in favour of a garish array that actually looks quite slipshod? Tony (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Given that they are personal to you and mine are starkly different, I will take them with a pinch of salt. It is clear that you are opposed to the use of flags, though for what reason I cannot discern. Through the use of {{flagicon}}, the flags now automatically provide a link to the article of the country to which they refer, meaning that any reader who hovers his/her mouse over the flag will find out what the country is immediately. Furthermore, they are not "splotches of bright colours", they are flags, and I do not appreciate your facetiousness in the making of your point. Finally, "garish" and "slipshod" are rather extreme terms for what I myself deem to be a well-organised and efficient presentation of information. – PeeJay 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
They're not "personal" in any particular way, which is how you're trying to frame them: they're fact. You seem to believe that withholding the country-name from a table is a good thing. Why? Tony (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the flags don't withhold the information. It is a matter of presenting the information graphically instead of using narrative. As PeeJay says, you can read the name of the country simply by hovering over the flag with your mouse. I think there are articles in which use of flags is overdone, but not in this one. As I have pointed out at WT:FOOTY, I believe this article should be renamed to reflect the match, result and date per similar one-match articles. GnGn (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Tony, when you use words like "garish" and "slipshod", that indicates to me that this is a matter of opinion. Just because other people may share that opinion doesn't mean it's not personal to you. Furthermore, just because a plurality of people share the same opinion doesn't make it correct. I'd like to flip the scenario on you, if I may, by asking why you think removing the flags altogether is preferable to keeping them in just because they don't spell out the name of the country to which they refer right next to them. – PeeJay 08:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What information do the flags add? Or are they decorative? --John (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not merely decorative. As stated aove, they are a graphic means of presenting information, in this case the nationality of each player in the lists. I'm still a relatively new member but I believe I've read somewhere that editors should strive to use images, graphics, etc. where practicable as otherwise the reader sees only a wall of boring old text. I feel sure that most readers would prefer to see the St George's Cross umpteen times in a list rather than repetitive use of the word England. Besides which, the flag saves space as it enables a narrower column in the table. GnGn (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. They are not exclusively for decoration, they are simply a more efficient and aesthetically pleasing way of indicating the nationalities of the players, hence indicating the international nature of the sport. – PeeJay 11:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the nationalities of the players an important factor in the article? Are we talking their "sporting" nationalities or their official ones? --John (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In football articles (I can't speak for other sports), we always refer to a player's "sporting" nationality, i.e. the national team for which the player is qualified to play. I don't think the players' nationalities were relevant to the specific incident that made this match notable, but for the sake of consistency among other club football match articles, it makes sense to indicate players' nationalities in all articles. – PeeJay 13:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a very contrived argument you have concocted there. The purpose of the flags is purely to render some colourful graphics, and because people use it in other articles. This match is not an international match, so nationalities are not sporting nationality for the purposes of MOS:FLAG and thus are totally irrelevant. -- Ohc  17:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
How, then, do readers know they must hover over each flag to learn what it means? Why doesn't the key to the column explain whether it's the player's nationality or the team? Tony (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would it be the team's nationality? The team's nationality is indicated by the fact that no flags are assigned to them (what with it being a domestic game) and the country the game was played in is indicated by the lead paragraph (or at least it should be). As for your other comment, perhaps we need a better way of presenting football line-ups so that people know that "GK/DF/MF/FW" are the players' positions, the numbers are their jersey numbers and the flags indicate their nationalities. But that's not a discussion for here, that's for WT:FOOTY. – PeeJay 13:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to answer the points three posts above by User:Ohconfucius as I presume he is not a football fan. The use of flags is, for the third time, a graphic means of presenting information instead of saying England, England, England, England, England, England, oh! Wales, England, England, etc., ad nauseum. It is NOT "purely to render some colourful graphics". The use of graphics to convey information is widespread in all spheres of communication, not just the internet. As for folk using it in other articles, well, if they do then that presents a consensus, doesn't it? No, the match was not an international but the nationalities of the players are relevant in football because for the last thirty-odd years since the arrivals of Ardiles and Villa, nationality has been and still is a burning issue in English football. There are people now who will reluctantly admit that Liverpool have more top-class English players than anyone else at present but still criticise the club for employing South Americans. It is very important to specify players' nationalities.

The question asked by User:Tony1 – "how do readers know they must hover over each flag" – is about twenty years out of time. People of all ages nowadays know how to use their mice. Okay? They are not stupid. Graphics and images and links are abundant in the internet and people hovering their mice to get a connection or a bit of info is second nature. And anyway, as PeeJay says, this should all be discussed at WP:FOOTY as the arguments raised are generic. GnGn (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have reverted the latest edit by User:Ohconfucius, again removing the flags, because no consensus has been reached in this discussion and I think he should wait until this has been achieved before trying to impose his view on the article. I note that he has performed what amount to four edit reverts yesterday and today. I think this is out of order given that the matter is currently subject to discussion and I believe he should be patient. GnGn (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Categories: