Talk:1991 European Super Cup

Latest comment: 3 years ago by HawkAussie in topic GA Review
Good article1991 European Super 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
May 15, 2020Good article nomineeListed

Summary edit

My summary of this match is based largely on this YouTube video. However, I can't cite it in the article as YouTube isn't typically considered a reliable source. If anyone has a better source to support what can be plainly seen in the video, please add it. – PeeJay 14:10, 8 August 2014 (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:1991 European Super Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 02:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


I will be happy to review this article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   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):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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 edit

  • Manchester United won the match 1–0. - This feels out of place because you have already mentioned that in the second paragraph.
  • of 22,110, Manchester United's lowest home attendance of the season. - Do we need to know that it was the lowest for their season especially if it's trivial.

Background edit

  • ...favourites Barcelona by winning 2–1... - Drop "by winning"
  • ...Rotterdam, the Netherlands. - Drop "the"
  • It was the first Super Cup appearance for either side;... - Shouldn't be this at the start of paragraph instead of the end.
  • Also maybe link "aggregate" for people who might not know.
  • ...the aircraft on which the Manchester United team were travelling home... - Maybe you could slighty reword it here.
  • It would help if you could explain why? Harrias talk 07:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pre-match edit

  • Reading that section, I feel like their is a slight bias towards Manchester United as we don't know who Red Star Belgrade was missing from their lineup for this match.
  • Granted, but I simply haven't been able to find that information for Belgrade, and it seems silly to remove information we do know, just because we don't know something else. Note that the neutrality criteria states "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." I am not convinced that including factual information about one team and not the other is considered as representing a viewpoint. GA doesn't require comprehensiveness, only that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Harrias talk 07:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Match edit

  • ...captain Steve Bruce stepped up to take the penalty kick, which he placed to the right of Red Star goalkeeper Zvonko Milojević; however, Milojević guessed... - A bit over-detailed as you could just say that his penalty shot was blocked by Zvonko Milojević or something along those lines without going into detail
  • Trimmed this down, but left some detail. Harrias talk 20:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Manchester United played better after the goal, and had further chances... - Probably drop the "played better after the goal, and" as it sort of sounds like a bit of WP:WEASEL, so instead do something like "Manchester United had further chances..."

Aftermath edit

  • ...they lost the tie in 1999, 2008 and 2017 - Slighty modify this sentence to "losing the 1999, 2008 and 2017 Supercups" or something similiar.

References edit

  • Only reference 4 has an connection issue, other than that the rest is fine.

Final comments edit

Going through the comments that you have posted:

  • 3rd background: I think for me, I usually try and put that last sentence in the first paragraph to the top as a way to introduce that section.
  • 5th background: Tried to work out if that sentence made sense and on a second readthrough it actually does so ignore that comment
  • Pre-match: True on that part and it's to try and find specific resources for the Yugoslav part and in part it's probably a good thing.

Other than those, I think it's close to be a GA article. HawkAussie (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@HawkAussie: Made a few more changes, and responded to your points, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 20:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Harrias: Looking at the modifications and I think it's complete the article. Good job and have an GA badge on me. HawkAussie (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2020 (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.