Talk:Costa scores only goal as Chelsea beats Arsenal

Review of revision 4166595 [Passed]

Revision 4166595 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Re the number of fouls: I don't know what BBC's problem is, but I suspect it may involve being unable to count. BBC's summary table says 27 fouls, whereas the Guardian's summary table says 25. At first I thought BBC might have mistakenly counted the number of separate entries in their running commentary that use the word "foul", which would result in duplicates since they often have one entry for the foul itself and then a separate entry a few seconds later for a resulting "yellow card for a bad foul"; but in fact that happens three times resulting in 28 entries for 25 fouls. If it had happened exactly twice, neatly explaining the discrepancy, I'd have allowed us to simply say there were 25 fouls in total, but as it is I went for at-least-25. (The Guardian's running commentary is of no help, as they seem to be reporting nowhere near all of the fouls.) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4166595 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Re the number of fouls: I don't know what BBC's problem is, but I suspect it may involve being unable to count. BBC's summary table says 27 fouls, whereas the Guardian's summary table says 25. At first I thought BBC might have mistakenly counted the number of separate entries in their running commentary that use the word "foul", which would result in duplicates since they often have one entry for the foul itself and then a separate entry a few seconds later for a resulting "yellow card for a bad foul"; but in fact that happens three times resulting in 28 entries for 25 fouls. If it had happened exactly twice, neatly explaining the discrepancy, I'd have allowed us to simply say there were 25 fouls in total, but as it is I went for at-least-25. (The Guardian's running commentary is of no help, as they seem to be reporting nowhere near all of the fouls.) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Yeah, but the thing is, I take up the figures from BBC Sport and pile it up in the article. I have been using The Guardian just because we need two sources. I know counting everything can be really painful.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't safe to simply take as gospel those figures from BBC Sport. I do expect them to get the number of yellow cards right, but not the bigger, subtler numbers like fouls. Judgement has to temper one's belief in the trust-worthiness of any given source, and this is a limit on how reliable BBC Sport is. --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)