Talk:Bicycle kick/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will review later tonight or early tomorrow. Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

This exception is most significant in Spanish, where there exists a fierce controversy between Chile and Peru Is this distinction in every variety of Spanish or is the alternation only in Chilean and Peruvian Spanishes? If the source makes a distinction, it should be stated in the article. As a sub point, is the "neutral" term tijera widespread or only in Castilian/Hispanola Spanishes?
thus, in the words of British sports journalist Jonathan Wilson, "[the British] exploited South America's natural resources, and in return they gave soccer." What's the purpose of this quote? It feels out of place and a little POV (or at least WP:UNDUE)
Throughout the article, but particularly in Bicycle kick#acclaim the use of quote seem to verge on violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. The repetition and use of quotes to describe the acclaim given for using the kick doesn't add much to the information I'm giving but tries to reinforce the idea that players who use it are popular which may be true but that's not really what people would be coming to this page for.
(These last three were going to be optional, but given the concerns above I'm going to make them required to be addressed but with a little lower burden.)
The bicycle kick is known in English by three different names Does the source differentiate the dialects? In American English I have only ever heard "bicycle kick" and I'd assume the others may be chiefly British. But if the source isn't that precise, then it's not a problem.
The quotations in the first paragraph of Bicycle kick#Execution seem rather WP:QUOTEFARM-y. Give some thought to whether the quotations add something that can't be gotten from paraphrasing the sources. The rest of them though seem to add to the information but I do think fewer direct quotations are better in general. I'm leaving this unstruck as a reminder to review quotation use in general throughout the article
According to sports historian David Goldblatt, South America "added a greater emphasis on individual trickery and dexterity, the continent's footballers claiming the invention of the bicycle kick and bending free kicks, and allotting pride of place to the individual dribble". Again, not entirely sure why this is quoted rather than paraphrased.

Response[edit]

Thank you, Wugapodes. This is a very thoughtful and smart review. I am very grateful that you focused on the language because, as you also correctly figured out, this is the most complicated part of the article. My plan is to next take this for an FA review (perhaps between mid-December and early January). I will respond to your points in numerical format (to match the numbers in the above list); or, let me know how you best would prefer for me to respond.

1. The sources (Witzig & DK Publishing) do not make a distinction on the language variety, but Witzig does make a distinction on geography ("depending on which country you are visiting"). Perhaps the names could be considered a country-specific variation, but their use in other countries dismisses the idea (for example, the Castro source identifies them as synonyms and the Lati source considers the names are a matter of personal preference rather than tied to a particular variety of Spanish). The same applies to tijera, where the sources do not make a distinction. Maybe they should; I have sent a few online letters to newspapers in the past suggesting them to conduct a formal study on what country uses what term (they don't seem to share my dedication to the subject).

2. I feared the word "exploited" might be harsh, but I included the quote thinking it was a nice representation of cultural & economic exchange. Wilson's tone is very sour towards Britain (despite he is English), but I think it may be because he is upset at the lack of development of the sport in Britain during this time—I am not sure why, it may just have been the general feeling he had at the time of writing this part of the book. I tried a paraphrase ([1]); please, let me know what you think.

3. I think the paraphrase should be complete. I only left a couple of quotes in there (one is for "The Goal of the Century," which is not really much of a quote as it is the name by which the goal is known, and the "wonder goal" quote for Ibrahimovic's very unique bicycle kick ([2]). I really can't think of another way to describe it: Video of the Goal.

4. The sources aren't that precise. I am not sure why. From discussion in a few football forums, people from Britain have told me that they use "overhead kick" more than "bicycle kick" (which they associate as an American term). I considered source quality could be a problem, but even The American Encyclopedia of Soccer (Hollander 1980) finds no distinction (for "bicycle kick" it recommended to "see 'overhead kick'").

5. I understand and totally agree; thank you! The flow is better now with the paraphrased text ([3]). I only left a few small quotes in the section (although I think the one in the last paragraph can also be removed, and probably will do so at some point in the near future).

6. I'm a fan of Goldblatt's work (The Ball is Round is a personal favorite), but I agree that the use of quotes in the article was approaching ad nauseum levels. I hope the paraphrase ([4]) catches the main idea.

I will respond to points 3, 5, and 6 as soon as possible. Please do let me know if you have any additional suggestions (or if there are any points that I may not have addressed correctly). Thanks again for the review!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time with the rest of the points (you get 7 days for a reason, don't feel pressured). I think this will do well at FAC with some more work, particularly on MOS issues and use of quotes. The jump between FA and GA can be a very large one. For example, the GA criteria only require compliance with 5 sections of the WP:Manual of Style but the FA criteria require compliance with all of it. So while the quotes here are more of a question of neutrality, I could see objections based upon MOS:QUOTE or criteria 1(a) since quotes interrupt the flow of prose and distract from encyclopedic tone. It may do very well though, I'm not an FA reviewer and my first nomination has only been open a few days so I'm far from an expert on it. That being said, I highly recommend a WP:Peer review and possibly a WP:Copyedit before nominating for FA to make sure that people who are well versed in the FA criteria and MOS can iron out the issues before WP:FAC.

Anyway, to address your points,

Regarding 1 and 4, since the sources aren't that specific I will drop those; if that's the best information available, it's all you can be expected to put in the article.
Regarding 2, I think the new wording is better.

Wugapodes (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that a copyedit and peer review will be very useful. By the way, I had no idea that there existed a Black American Sign Language. The article is a very informative and interesting read; I think it will do great in its FAC nomination.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

On Hold for 7 days. Sorry about the heavy focus on languages, but that's what you get when you bring a sociolinguist into a discussion of language, haha. OVerall a very good article that I think needs to have its prose tightened. Try to paraphrase a number of the quotations, and be more precise about languages that use the various terms.Wugapodes (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed after the revisions made. While they weren't a problem for GA, the use of quotes as a whole is little much, and I do think a copy edit to try and help paraphrase the quotes would really make the prose brilliant. It's not far from FA quality, but still needs a bit of work. Considering how well you've done so far though, I don't think it will be a big challenge. Keep up the good work and best of luck at FAC. Wugapodes (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]