Good article2022 FIFA World Cup 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
March 4, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

GAN[edit]

Hi guys - does anyone have any objections for me to take this through the GAN process? I feel like we are suitably far out from the tournament for it to be stable enough. Does anyone want to step in as a co-nominator? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's two sections towards the bottom that have active tags. I feel that the Security section could be rolled into Preparations, but that would have to be created (and there's thorough coverage of the preparations involved). The match summaries also seem to be a bit underdeveloped. SounderBruce 08:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, I'll put together some fixes later. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failing this based on cleanup banners that have not been addressed. When the Controversy section was tagged as WP:UNDUE (December 2022), it had 3,251 words of readable prose and the editor tagging it highlighted that it needed "some heavy trimming down". The opposite has happened as the section now totals 3,950 words. This article should summarise the controversies and the reaction to them, the level of detail provided is more appropriate for List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies and the related articles on specific controversies.

The Security section has been tagged as needing expanding although it has been suggested on the talk page that it could be included in a Preparations section/article. If the information already provided is all that is available, I would agree that it is not necessary to have a section dedicated to security and that inclusion in a Preparations section would be more appropriate.

There is also one ((update after)) tag and one ((citation needed)) tag.

I have concerns regarding WP:OR as well. From the edit history, the Tournament ranking section with the citation needed tag appears contentious and has been highlighted as potential OR before. The Discipline section is also unsourced. A source to the regulations is provided but no source for individual suspensions and the matches to which they applied has been provided.

A number of bare URLs which do not appear in the list of references have been used to cite match results and standings tables, these should be updated per WP:CITE to full citations.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No drama, if it's alright with you, I'll just put my comments after this. You are well within your rights to quickfail the article, although I don't think there's all that much that needed doing (from the above at least). I've gone ahead and merged security into the venues section. It's important that we note that countries gave police (and other) forces to the event, although the actual security at the event is the same as any other event of this size, so doesn't need its own section (or an expansion). I don't think a preparations section is required, as the whole of the rest of the article is about how the event was created and how it went on.

I've removed the final standings table (as I've done probably 50 times now), as the consensus is that it should not be created unless FIFa actually creates such a table.

I'm just going through and fixing/removing the few uncited items now. I don't think the summary section is underdone, it covers pretty much every match, and full summaries of each match should exist in the sub-articles (see 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B for an example).

As for the controversy (which I suspect is the main reason for the failure, which is fair), it's a bit long, but I don't think it is specifically far too long, mainly due to the sheer amount of press and longevity of the issues surrounding the event. Several press releases have deemed it "the most controversial sporting event of all time", and thus having a section of a larger weight of the whole article makes a lot of sense. However, I shall go through the prose and clean it up a bit before renominating. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that's a good solution for the security section. You've done a lot of good work on the article so far which is much appreciated, good luck when it comes to renomination. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was aware it would be a difficult one to promote. I've done a significant cull of the controversy, and I think that about covers it. I'll have another read through and renom later. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full Match Replays?[edit]

Hi all, FIFA+ has all full match replays of this World Cup available worldwide. Is something that might be considered to add links to those under each match in the same way that Reports are made available? Cobitredici (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

Scope

I see, I guess that works. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

Host selection

Venues

Teams

Officiating

Group stage

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group E

Group F

Group G

Maybe suffered? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better that way since these articles should be written in a way that people not familiar with the subject matter can understand them.Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout stage

Statistics

Awards

Marketing

Symbols

Controversies

I think that would be wise, considering the next earlier mention of a time is two paragraphs before, so it's not really clear. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, didn't even catch that one! :D With how many S do you spell innocent? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the audience protests were about that as well, I would argue that players protesting is more relevant to the World Cup than spectators doing the same. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Will do some more spotchecks later, but for now:

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at such a long and in depth article Zwerg Nase. I have replied to the above, and I'm just going through the sources to fix up the ones that aren't quite finished. Let me know if there is more I need to look at. :) Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have anything more for me Zwerg Nase? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zwerg Nase - not to chase, but was there anything more? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry, was way more busy over the past week than I thought I would be. I am happy with the prose now, still some minor concerns about the sources though. Some are missing parameters such as release date, retrieval date, author (where available). I don't think there are many, I've noticed #4, #192, maybe you could do a quick scan if you find any others? Then I would be happy to promote. Good work so far! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't mind taking a look - fair warning, I edit almost exclusively on mobile now, so scrutinising sources for formatting (especially on large sized articles) can be troublesome. I will need to find some time with a PC to make these changes. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away with some personal stuff - I can't remember where we got with this review, did we come to a conclusion Zwerg Nase? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski @Zwerg Nase I'm just going through the oldest GANs and found this one. It sounds like it's very close to being wrapped up and is just waiting for some minor fixes on some references. Zwerg, if I may be so bold, if Lee is having technical issues editing this and you know what you're looking for, perhaps you could just make the changes yourself so this can get moved along? RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase - any ideas if there was anything else you needed from me? I've lost track as to what is required. I think we are all but there. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry, had little time to check Wikipedia the last couple of weeks. Sources are still my issue here. 305 is missing publisher and date, 306 is missing publisher and retrieval date as well as title translation, 312 is missing retrieval date, 317 "Eurosport" should be capitalized and title given in French with translation, 402 and 403 are questionable since it's YouTube videos (maybe find a better source here?), 406 missing retrieval date. Those are all I can find right now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, should be done. I've fixed 305, 306, 317 and removed 406 (metro is unreliable). One of the YouTube videos is a direct interview with a reliable source, which should be fine, the other is from Sky News, an RS. It being in video form is irrelevant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase, I see this is still outstanding, are you ready to pass this? -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Looks good now, passing :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Bookku (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Knockout stage results[edit]

The final was between Argentina and France. This article shows Argentina and Spain. There are also several wrong match results. 100.15.89.222 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final standings[edit]

Hi! We've previously removed these sections because FIFA haven't made such announcements on newer tournaments. Should we really be making unofficial rankings based on an article by the Sporting News? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]