# Talk:Soccer kick

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soccer kick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PRehse (talk · contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The topic is well referenced and generally well written but it seems to me that it should be expanded to include more than part of a sentence on its name sake (the kick in soccer).  The lead sentence leaves one hanging for a bit more information - perhaps a sub-section right after the lead describing what the kick actually looks like.  An alternative would be a name change to better reflect the specific nature of the article but even here more descriptive prose is lacking.
Currently it meets most of the GA criteria but is weak in Breadth and has no Illustrations.
Peter Rehse (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@PRehse: I have added an additional paragraph right after the lead about how the technique is done but I will make it a separate area if you think that is best. I am trying to find a CC image of one however there doesn't appear to be any online and I don't have the means to create one. That being said I am asking the Commons about one I think is acceptable. Meanwhile, any other issues that will need sorting?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I am hoping there will be some comments from other editors.  From my point of view lack of images is the biggest hole.  At this point it is only a feeling but I think it may be pre-mature for GA status with a promotion to B class once images are put in.  That feeling is subject to change (hence the need for additional input) once I see the altered article.  The paragraph you added was good and beyond what I said there is nothing specific I would add.  I know feeling is not a criteria but the article has to exemplify some of Wikipedia's best work which is hard to quantify.  Using the tools I really found only one additional point.
The script has spotted the following contractions: Doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Point 6 of the GAC do say images "if possible", so it is not necessarily mandatory. The image I thought of using was vetoed at commons and I doubt any non-free image would be accepted as fair use because the action of the technique can be replicated. I will try for one but I don't know if it will stick.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes not mandatory but they would go a long way to bring the article up to Wikipedia's best work - I strongly encourage you to try and find something suitable.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Since the reviewer has asked for another opinion, here is mine: Images are not required, see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. The criteria stipulates images only "if possible", i.e. not strictly required at all. If the article meets the criteria, it should be passed, and if not, the reviewer should state "what criteria it does not meet and, if necessary, state what is needed to bring the article up to standard.", per the instructions.  I would add, however, that there appears to be material in the lead which is not discussed in the article and at the same time omit material which would reasonably be expected to be included there, whereas per WP:LEAD the lead should in fact "summarize the most important points", which of course the reader should expect to also find in the body of the article. C679 16:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Cloudz679: for picking this up. I have rearranged the lead and put the description in it's own section. Writing lead sections was never my strong point. Any further comments?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I am asking for second opinion on this article since although I do not feel that it is GA, I can not be helpful enough on where and how to fix it.  This does not mean it should not be passed just that I am unsure.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@PRehse: would you like me to take over and do a full review? C679 19:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: Yes please - I have done reviews before and it went quite well but in this case I seem not able to process to my own satisfaction much less the nominators.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I would say the prose needs some polishing. I am a little confused why MMA seems to "trump" wrestling in respect of this article, particularly since the article presents wrestling as having a longer connection (1977 vs 1993, 1999 vs 2010 in video games). My take on this and other issues are detailed below:


### Well-written
lead: 

why is there a Japanese script translation in the first sentence? Is it a term first used in Japanese?
link supine to supine position, prone to prone position
avoid terms like "notably used" and use the text to indicate why its use was notable
lead mentions 1993 but this is nowhere to be found in the body
the sentence " Gerard Gordeau used a soccer kick to defeat Teila Tuli, which also knocked out some of Tuli's teeth." would work better with the soccer kick directly before ", which also knocked out some of Tuli's teeth"
"however other rulesets, including the ones used by Pride Fighting Championships do permit them" or "however, other rulesets do permit them, including..."
"Soccer kicks have been regularly discussed as to what possible damage can occur as a result of them" doesn't make sense
the lead says these are "specifically to the head of the downed opponent" but the body says "kicks to other parts of the body in a similar style are also referred to as soccer kicks"
"a number of doctors and politicians have opposed them" but no apparent mention of doctors' opposition within the body, other than a single Dr. Johnny Benjamin (why is his opinion notable?), and the rather vague "Some medical professionals", which doesn't even confirm that they are in fact doctors; also only a single politician is mentioned in the body
body mentions that the kick is usually carried out with the use of the shin, but this is absent in the lead
body:

"The technique is performed when a fighter is standing to the side or in front of an opponent on the ground and kicking the grounded opponent's head" is it actually a technique? seems to be more like a move. Also should be "kicks" and not "kicking"
"Most practitioners aim to use their shins for the point of impact" as the point...
"The Soccer kick" shouldn't be capitalised
"Gordeau's usage of one against Tuli in UFC 1" there is no context here, since it's the first mention in the body. Use full names and date, link UFC1
"It is noted that while soccer kicks to grounded opponents are fouls, axe kicks are not considered fouls if done to a grounded opponent." what's the significance here? Are axe kicks also to the head?
"Pride" should be linked and fully stated at its first mention in the body
"Opponents argued" who are we talking about here? every other use of this word is with regard to the receiver of the kick, but clearly this is not the case.
"political opposition to the sport from people such as John McCain" but he is not in this context solely a person but some kind of political power, so make that clear
"Notable practitioners of the soccer kick in MMA were fighters Wanderlei Silva and Mauricio Rua." or Fighters Wanderlei Silva and Mauricio Rua were..."
"regarding the rule regarding" and the whole sentence "Under the Unified Rules, some MMA fighters attempt to use tactics regarding the rule regarding "kicking the head of a grounded opponent", which defined any fighter having any part of their body apart from their feet on the ground was grounded." doesn't make sense to me
link the first mention of "puroresu" in the body of the text
"different compared with the normal UFC mode which does not include soccer kicks due to UFC following the Unified Rules while Pride did not." prose


### Verifiable
To check

Referencing
"Despite the ban on soccer kicks under the unified rules, they are still used as an example to criticise MMA as "barbaric savagery".[13]" failed verification
It is in the source and the source comes out fine. Not seeing an issue here.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No mention of "soccer kicks" at the source. C679 09:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed. @Cloudz679: I think that covers everything.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Error 522 on fn6 "Connection timed out"
Working fine for me.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"Some MMA fans argue that no-one has ever been seriously injured from a soccer kick and stated that there were already equally dangerous moves allowed in MMA.[i]" reading the reference, this appears to be the sole opinion of the author
I have added another source  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"Gerard Gordeau defeated Teila Tuli with a soccer kick, which also knocked out some of Tuli's teeth.[2]" one according to the reference
Changed  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"Some medical professionals have stated their belief that soccer kicks could cause serious injury, based on the assumption that an MMA fighter would be able to generate the same amount of force in a soccer kick as a professional association football player.[5]" reading the reference, this appears to be the sole opinion of one doctor, who appears to have a direct connection with the author
Changed  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Still an issue in the lead. C679 09:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Under those rules, soccer kicks were explicitly banned and classed as a foul defined as "kicking the head of a grounded opponent".[7]" fn7 seems to deal with state rules
the state rules follow the unified rules  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Not clear to a reader without specialist knowledge. C679 09:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
New source added.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
"In the years after the banning of soccer kicks under the Unified Rules, a number of fans and MMA fighters have argued for them to be permitted under the Unified Rules along with face and foot stomps. Their justification is that soccer kicks and foot stomps being disallowed hindered fighters who were used to using them under other MMA rule sets. They also argued that elbows were more dangerous than soccer kicks and yet were allowed under the unified rules.[9]" ref only seems to be based on a single fighter, not explicitly mentioning fans or multiple fighters
Rearranged, reworded and new source.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"it often led to the end of a match by (t)ko, owing to the effectiveness of the technique" from a prose point of view I would prefer "owing to its effectiveness" but I can't see this supported in the reference (fn14)
Removed.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
C679 12:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(Will answer rest later today) If you read the commentary, it may not say soccer kick (probably because the term wasn't used back then) but from the description it is describing soccer kicks. This Youtube video (from 4:45) shows that he did use soccer kicks.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


### Broad
Appears to meet the criteria


### Neutral
The wrestling section seems severely limited. It happened once in 1977 and no other information, whereas the MMA section has an unfolding history of its relevance. This would seem not to give "due weight to each" which the criteria requires.


### Stable
yes


### illustrated
Passes this criteria as previously mentioned.
C679 21:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: I have addressed the concerns above and included an image (though I can't find a free image it is non-free, I don't know if the powers that be will accept it in this context)  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Further comments:
the lead discusses the kick being specifically to the head, but should also mention to other parts of the body, as noted earlier in the review and in the main part of the article
"Soccer kicks have been regularly debated as to potential damage. There has been a regular debate on the usage of them" repetetive
"soccer kicks could result in broken necks and paralysis given the correct positioning and velocity." not sure that "correct" is the right tone
"intention to make" of making
"Their justification is that soccer kicks and foot stomps being disallowed hindered fighters" is, hinders; or was, hindered.
"Although soccer kick is a foul" a soccer kick
"spelled an imminent end to the contest"
"Under the Unified Rules, some MMA fighters attempt to use tactics with the "kicking the head of a grounded opponent" rule" the context here suggests "attempted" would be more fitting
"were taught to use wrestling moves and strikes legitimately due to the likelihood of attacks from fans" don't get it?
"In 1977 in Japan in"
C679 06:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: Done those.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"In 1977 within Japan in a puroresu match " still doesn't convey the right message. Suggest "In a 1977 pruroresu match in Japan". I note that the image is up for deletion. I will get to the referencing shortly. C679 10:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The following comments have been moved from higher up in order to highlight them as unaddressed:
"Orton's use of the soccer kick led to the alternative name of the "punt kick".[20]" failed verification
Removed.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"In Japan within a 1977 puroresu match between Antonio Inoki and Great Antonio, Inoki started to shoot on Great Antonio after Great Antonio refused to sell Inoki's offence. Inoki used a takedown on Great Antonio and then used soccer kicks to legitimately knock out Great Antonio.[21]" WP:OR? Are these the opinions of the Wikipedia writer or a secondary source?
C679 09:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: I have already answered this one. Just because it may not say "soccer kicks" as the name probably didn't exist at the time, looking at the commentary, it is describing them. Or should I just add the video as a source to remove doubt.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to say this part seems to fail WP:V, video or not. Otherwise the article looks in good shape. C679 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: I have found a new source, which also comprises the video. Hopefully that's enough for GA status.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. The article is now fully compliant with the GA criteria. C679 07:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)