This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: England / Arsenal / Manchester United / Season Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Arsenal task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the season article task force. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	1998 FA Charity Shield is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	1998 FA Charity Shield is part of the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2013 Good article nominee Listed May 19, 2014 Peer review Reviewed August 23, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted April 9, 2018 Good topic candidate Promoted August 14, 2021 Good topic candidate Promoted January 24, 2024 Good topic removal candidate Demoted Current status: Featured article

This review is transcluded from Talk:1998 FA Charity Shield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 10:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Should be done relatively promptly. - Shudde ^talk 10:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I usually just list any comments, regardless of how important they may be regarding the criteria. Then I go through and assess everything against the criteria. I also usually do the lead last.

Background

• First up. I'm not sure about File:1998 FA Community Shield programme.png. I may ask for a second opinion on this. For one, I think the resolution is too high.
• Before anything else, it would be good to say exactly what the charity shield is – doesn't need to be long, maybe one or two sentences.
• Ref [2] doesn't support much of the first two sentences - additional ref's are needed for verification; especially regarding qualification for the Charity Shield

Ref 7 lists the head-to-head between both clubs by date and Ref 8 is a match report of that game.

• "Given they won both honours, the Charity Shield place went to league runners-up Manchester United." - not referenced

Found an article which states "Normally the Charity Shield is between the previous season's League champions and FA Cup winners, but as Arsenal clinched the double last season the FA invited United, runners-up to the Gunners in the title race, to provide the opposition yesterday.", hope it is valid enough for this and the prior point.

• "The last meeting between both teams was in the league" - again ref doesn't support this (unless I'm wrong). Maybe you're better to reorganised this section. Just discussing their two League (should be League rather than league right?) fixtures against Man U would probably be enough background.
• " Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger acknowledged the game" - be clear here " Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger acknowledged the Shield game" ?
• "Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson prioritised the club's UEFA Champions League two-legged tie against ŁKS Łódź, with the first game in midweek" may be better to be more specific than "prioritised" - did he rest any key players?

Fergie arguably started his strongest team, but in the lead up to the match he downplayed the importance of it (compared to the Champions League), which is what the article was trying to get. Used preoccupied instead.

Match

• " who signed for United in the close season made his debut for the club" - this isn't clear
• "Dennis Bergkamp returned after injuring himself at the end of last season and played just off the main striker, Nicolas Anelka." - may want a reference, also not 100% clear on "played just off the main striker, Nicolas Anelka"

Bergkamp played during pre-season, so I guess it wasn't his return match. Removed that bit and rephrased it to state he partnered Anelka upfront, cited of course.

• " with their midfield coping sufficiently as Arsenal's pair Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit were "re-tuning their concentration"" unclear. Considering the section isn't particularly long, may wish to clarify that
  • It still reads badly; "re-turning their concentration" doesn't make much sense to me. Just because someone in the media used this term (or a coach or fellow player) doesn't mean it should be used to describe their play here. I assume it's supposed to imply that the two of them took some time to become comfortable, or something like that. - Shudde ^talk 05:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked the sentence; hope it reads more clearer.

• "United fashioned their first chance through David Beckham, who throughout the match was subjected to "moronic booing" because of his dismissal at the World Cup and its repercussion on England's fortunes" - a note explaining this would be valuable (I actually know what it is referring to, but many people won't)
  • Reading this again, "its repercussion on England's fortunes" comes across as very unecyclopaedic. Reword it to be more explicit. Good work on the note though. - Shudde ^talk 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a go at rewording this. I think it reads better now, and is a little more encyclopaedic; hopefully this is ok. - Shudde ^talk 05:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "who miscontrolled" - is miscontrolled a word?
• " attempt to clear and the ball broke to Marc Overmars – from inside the area, he hooked the ball first time past Schmeichel." this isn't clear, consider rewording
  • Reworded it now.
• Beware of overlinking: Patrick Vieira, David Seaman, Ronny Johnsen etc
• "In the 57th minute, Arsenal increased their lead. From the left wing, Overmars used his pace to get the better of Gary Neville and passed the ball to Anelka, which drew in Stam. Anelka in turn transferred it to Wreh, whose shot was saved once by Schmeichel, but not on the rebound." - just saying that reads very well (to me at least)!
• Where is the ref for the details section?

Post-match

• " first time a southern club" a note on southern club may help the non-English readers

Added a footnote

Would be good to have a ref for that. - Shudde ^talk 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the footnote a bit; hope you don't mind. It would have been very hard to cite the footnote how it was, so added a bit on the cultural differences between the north and south, Arsenal acting as the pioneer of professional football in the south (fortunate given the topic of the article) and when the Southern Football League became engulfed.

• " for the Champions League campaign, where the club planned to stage their home matches" - this is unclear, I'm not sure what it means
• "United also pipped Arsenal to win the Premier League, decided on the final day." - maybe expand on this, and a reference
• Considering the Champions Trophy is mentioned several times within the article, it would be good to say exactly how each team fared - especially MU against ŁKS Łódź.
  • That expansion is great. The whole section reads much better now and doesn't leave the reader (in this case me), wanting to know more about how the overall season progressed. - Shudde ^talk 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Maybe say it's an English competition. This isn't clear unless the reader is familiar with the clubs or Premier League.
• " Manchester United, who finished as runners-up to Arsenal" - it's not clear whether this is runner up to the League or FA Cup; either way, just say so (and not to Arsenal, that's already been mentioned).
  • Just say "finished runners-up in the league" - that Arsenal won it has already been mentioned - Shudde ^talk 00:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "defender Jaap Stam making his debut in English football" - this isn't explicitly mentioned in the article (only that he hadn't played for United yet)
• Should the result be mentioned in the opening sentence?

Other

• Would be good to have somewhere (other than the lead/infobox) exactly where the match was played
• References look good.

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments, a few things unclear

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments, some statements need verification; some refs not verifying entire statement

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Only a couple of minor points above

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   need a second opinion on the fair use image

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll place the article on hold. I don't think the comments will be hard for you to address. Feel free to ask further questions if I haven't been clear. I'll check the page again in a few days, but if you want an urgent response to a query then ping me on my talk page and I'll try and answer promptly. - Shudde ^talk 11:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image comment: I'd knock this down to 300px wide, just to be safe. Although 450 is low resolution for print, it's still much bigger than what will show up in the article and thus unneeded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick agreement on that. There's not that much fine detail to require a higher resolution, though I would say this would be desirable, but not a requirement to passing this as GA (as long as AGF the editor will take the steps to reduce or even add ((non-free reduce)) to put it to the gnomes to adjust.) --MASEM (t) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to correct the image as suggested above (if someone could assist me, I would be grateful, if not and the picture gets deleted, so be it), otherwise I have made corrections and commented below certain points, where appropriate. Thanks for your through review. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for you - I'm sure once the toolserver is being a bit more stable and the one click thingy works again then it'll be done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks everyone. Yeah thought the resolution was a bit high. Thanks for your help! - Shudde ^talk 00:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there

Nearly there. There is still the comment about the "re-turning" above that needs to be addressed; it just doesn't make much sense to me. Sorry to do this so late, but the only other thing is that the date of the match isn't mentioned in the lead. Would be good if that was added in the first couple of sentences. Once those two things are done, I'll be happy to pass the article. Cheers. - Shudde ^talk 05:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the date in the lead. Thanks again. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen so many "locations" indicated in references. It is common practice, as far as I know, to not include locations for such newspapers as The Times; location is reserved for the "other" ones, the minor ones that need disambiguation. In addition, I see "BBC News" expanded at "British Broadcasting Corporation", which isn't just totally redundant but also, strictly speaking, incorrect--since the first term has "news" but the second one does not. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1998 FA Charity Shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130324032404/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/manchester-united/1997-1998 to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/manchester-united/1997-1998

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]