Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C. in European football/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [1].

Liverpool F.C. in European football edit

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has recently undergone a copyedit which has improved the prose, which was the main issue when the article went to GAN. A peer review was recently undertaken which helped improve the layout of the article and improve it for non football readers. All in all, I believe the article is ready to be considered for promotion. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include both authors for Ponting refs?

Steve Hale, the co-author is a photographer, it's ponting that has wrote the book, I can include him if you want? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers

done NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use a consistent date format

scanned through the article and I can't find any inconsistent dates, could tell me which were the offending dates please? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Retrieved 12 September 2006" vs "Retrieved June 6, 2011". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done NapHit (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

LFC History is a highly reliable site, the authors of the site have recently released a book entitled Liverpool F.C. the complete record using info from their site. Statistics from the site have been regularly used on the club's official site, and the club has recognised the site's work. I think all this make it highly reliable. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence isn't really relevant, but the second helps. Do you know who the authors are and what their qualifications are? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sixth paragraph on this page will clear up any reliability issues. NapHit (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 71: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added the page NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have only read the lead, and I find the first paragraph dense and difficult. There is probably too much detail, and the organisation of material is confusing. Specifically:-

The opening sentence: "Liverpool Football Club are an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, whose team has regularly taken part in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions, winning a British record total of eleven trophies since their first appearance in 1964". is very clumsily phrased and far too long. Is it really necessary to say that Liverpool Football Club is based in Liverpool? Try to redraft as two succinct sentences.
"Qualification for English clubs is determined by a team's performance in its domestic league and cup competitions." That wording implies that the qualification rules for other (non-English) clubs are different – is that the case? Also you need to clarify what the "qualification" is for, e.g. "European tournament qualification is determined..." etc
"From 1964 to 1985, Liverpool regularly qualified for the primary European competition, the European Cup, by winning the former Football League First Division." What does "regularly" mean here? The implication of the word is thst they won the first Division every year, which of course they didn't.
" Since 1992, qualification to the renamed UEFA Champions League has been achieved either as runner-up or finishing in the top four of the Premier League". Eh? "Either as runner-up or finishing in the top four..." doesn't make sense (and nothing about winning either). You need to find a simpler way of saying that the top four clubs in the Premier League qualify.
The final sentence of the opening paragraph does not adequately introduce the other European competitions, and the wording "Liverpool have also achieved European qualification via the FA Cup and Football League Cup..." is imprecise.

As the first paragraph of the lead is likely to be the first part of any article which is read, it is particularly important that it offers a clear and coherent introduction to the article. At present I think this doesn't quite do that. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd had a go at redrafting the paragraph and I'm happy with everything apart from the last sentence, which I'm going to redraft a few times to see if I can introduce the competitions better. NapHit (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have tried to address my points, but I don't think the lead works as it is. The first paragraph mixes details of Liverpool's performance with qualification rules that have changed over time and are quite hard to explain or follow. Elsewhere there is unnecessary detail, e.g. "Liverpool's first match in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland." That's not necessary in the lead. Instead of trying to patch and stitch, I've written a shorter lead which I think works better. You will find it here. Please feel free to adopt it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was a mess, I've incorporated your lead, which flows a lot better, thanks for that, I appreciate the help. Any further comments on the article would be welcome. Cheers NapHit (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple more tweaks, to clarify the difference between the old European Cup competition and the present Champions League. Please check the these changes make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the successor trophy bit, as they still get the same trophy its just a different name, perhaps the best method would be to simply have European Cup/Champions League and then explain that it was rebranded in 1992? NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~European competitions: "This was later expanded, based on the countries rank in the coefficients...". Minor, but an apostrophe is needed at the end of "countries".~~
~~Paisley years: "As the 1975–76 League champions". Capitalizing League seems inconsistent with the rest of the article so far.~~
Fagan years: "Liverpool won the first leg at Anfield 1–0, their tactic in the second leg of withdrawing Dalglish into midfield put Benfica's game play into disarray". Comma clearly should be a semi-colon.
~~Benitez years: Don't need a second penalty shootout link, especially since this one's a general article, not specifically on the soccer version.~~
~~Repetition from one sentence to another here: "Dudek was replaced by Pepe Reina. Reina...". Try to avoid this if possible.~~
~~Another one here: "and again faced Chelsea. Chelsea progressed...".~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Giants I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Giants I put the apostrophe on the wrong sentence it should be right now. NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Dweller

Kudos on a great article. I'm enjoying it immensely, as, like many English fans of other teams, I have a soft spot for LFC. However, I do have some observations, please bear with me. Comments will follow, below. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I'm doing some minor c-e as I go through the article, but here we go with my comments to-date... apologies, I've not read the above (TLDR), so they may conflict with or repeat things said before:[reply]

article title is too colloquial for my liking. It's also bewildering for non Brits - of course Liverpool F.C. is "in Europe", as is Halifax Town F.C.. Permanently, by dint of geography, not footballing ability. I know it fits with the other seven club articles in Category:English football clubs in Europe, but I don't think that they're Featured. The parent article English clubs in European football is much better titled. Sorry, that's an annoying one to start with.

Ye, that has been mentioned before, it is fairly ambiguous. I think titling it along the same lines as the parent article would be the best choice. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an easier one to deal with: "club" appears three times in opening sentence.
"that has been" implies it is no longer
first mention of each trophy should be wikilinked
comments on methods of qualification for Europe are way too detailed for Lead - it's an entire sentence utterly unrelated to Liverpool F.C.

More to follow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far, I've dealt with a few, but I have work in the morning so going to bed in a bit, will address the rest tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

small point, but I believe RS usually talk about English clubs being "readmitted", not "reaccepted" (I'm a Norwich fan - no history of crowd trouble and we'd have qualified twice during the period of the ban, grr)
The section on European competitions seems massively overblown. I appreciate the rigour, but really just want the reader to understand what the various trophies are/were and roughly get an idea of their hierarchy. But mostly, it should be covered by a main article hatnote. I think you could make this an introduction section, which would then explain that in the early years of the competitions, Liverpool didn't play. You'd then explain something that is significantly missing from the article: why didn't Liverpool participate from inauguration of the competitions in 1955 until their first campaign in 1964. Sorry, I know that's another horror comment to get at FAC.

ok I think I've addressed all your concerns now, I've moved the page to reflect the name of the parent article. I've rewrote the section on the competitions per your comments, I'm unsure on the title though and how it should be implemented. I'm not sure whether it should stay as it is or be put into the history section. Anyway I hope the article is in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that all citations follow a punctuation mark, per WP:MOS --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"six confederations'" needs a wikilink --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What kit did the team previously wear? --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started amending Internazionale's name to Inter [Milan], as most commonly used in English, but was uncertain and stopped. Might be worth getting some input from WP:FOOTY members as to what they'd expect in an FA --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its Internazionale, every football article I've seen on here refers to them as Internazionale, even the guardian reference refers to them by this name. I'm certain its WP:FOOTY convention to use Internazionale, when I've taken lists to FLC with Inter in the list its been suggested to use Internazionale. I've addressed all your comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll continue next week. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see anything or think of anything which is obviously missing. It seems complete. The only comment I'd make on this is that there's no mention of Liverpool's record in the Intercontinental Cup in the text itself. Brad78 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I've added bits about Liverpool's participation in the Intercontinental Cup, cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.