Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2008 UEFA Champions League Final edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status and since then I have been working to improve it to FA status. I believe it is very close to FA status as it fulfils most of the FA criteria. The article is far more comprehensive than any of the other football match articles that currently have FA status, and all of the facts in the article have been rigorously fact-checked (or are in the process of being checked). Any comments that will help the article reach FA status are welcome, regardless of the criterion they address.

Thanks, – PeeJay 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC) You already know it is great so things that could make it better:[reply]

  • Some editors might expect a coma after "2008" in the opening sentence.
  • Some editors would question the need for references being called in the lead. Those facts might need a ref but we are confident in your sourcing throughout the body.
  • Does the FA Community Shield deserve extra mention?
  • I think it does, as it was the most recent meeting between the two sides not in the league, plus it went to penalties like this game. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider wikiliking "legs" or the idea of "aggregate".
  • "United won their first five group games before ..." That paragraph is ripe for expansion.
  • Done, although I am worried about the balance between the United and Chelsea sections. – PeeJay 01:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider expansion: "The quarter-final matches represented the fifth and sixth times these two clubs had met in Europe in just over 12 months."
  • Ronaldo did great on the way to the final. Who else eas essential to the run?
  • Not sure what you mean here. I think the important players are already mentioned in the "Route to the final" section. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...to be played over two days." Doesn't initially read as you likely intended. Consider modifying.
  • FieldTurf? Are you kidding me? Can you combine those two paragraphs?
  • "In recent years, the Champions League final has been given an identity of its own with a unique logo, a design concept, and an overall theme." Cool, what was it?
  • Annoyingly, I could easily describe the visual identity given to this game from pictures in the article, but I can't find any reliable sources available to cite it. I'll see if I can get hold of my copy of the match programme (I left it at home when I came down to uni), but I don't know if it will contain the info I need. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place at the GUM Centre in Moscow's Red Square on 3 April 2008" This read as it happening every year in Moscow. Consider modifying.
  • I've changed the wording slightly. Hopefully this will avoid confusion, but if not, I can't work out how to modify it without completely dismantling the sentence. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was capacity reduced?
  • Not sure, but I'll try to find out. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line seems silly and almost unneuteral. We all know how ticket sales work. You don't need to cut it but it hurts my head a bit. "As for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place at the GUM Centre in Moscow's Red Square on 3 April 2008"... but then the section gets even more confusing. Were Man United supporters from outside of the UK gobbling up tickets? It just reads off.
  • I don't understand what you're getting at here. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reads like Man United supporters were more interested which I assume isn't the case. Of course, if that is what the sources allude to hen you have to go with it.
  • It seems odd, doesn't it? According to the clubs, their allocations were both completely taken, but the UEFA source said Chelsea still had a couple of thousand to sell the day before the game. I've tried to give that section as much balance as I can, but like you say, we have to go with the sources. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not knowing the history, refs don't give goals: " in which he gave a controversial goal to Liverpool's Luis García"
  • Reworded. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand there is a ref but it doesn't mean much without knowing the history: "just as Teddy Sheringham and Ole Gunnar Solskjær did in 1999"
  • The term "cagey" was said. Overall, the jargon could be reduced.
  • I'm not sure how to reduce the jargon without making the article sound stale and uninteresting. Without a little jargon, we'd end up with "X kicked the ball into the net and it was awarded as a goal". – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood.
  • Ref 71 is used so much in the actual game analysis that I am concerned about unintended plagiarism. The prose are fince but the general thought is close. Is there a way t mix it up?
  • I'll see about remedying that. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Penalty shootout" is all but devoid of references.
  • I'm also working on that too. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Post-match" left me wanting just a little more explanation.
  • Which bit exactly needs more explanation? – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually not sure. I was reading it and just wanted more. I think that is a good sign! If you can think of anything throw it in.
  • Ronaldo is wikilinked too much.
  • Really? Apart from in the "Details" section, he isn't linked more than once per level 2 section, which I believed wasn't excessive linking. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I typically wikilink only in the lead, once in the main body, and maybe tables and captions. An extra one in the body isn't going to be a big deal and might actually be useful.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references list. publishers (websites) are written in italics.
  • Yes, they are. Should they not be? – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always read that websites are publishers that are not italicized. I have seen it though so maybe it is a different style.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "cite web" and "cite news" templates utilise a parameter called "website". If that parameter causes the text to be italicised, I assume that's because the MOS requires it. – PeeJay 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many images aligned to the right. It is not necessary to stagger images. Of these, they should not come directly after third level headings. The picture of Ľuboš Micheľ is facing the wrong way and there might actually be to many for certain sections.
  • Do you mean there are too many aligned to the left? If not, I don't understand your concern here apart from moving the image of Lubos Michel to the right so he faces the centre of the page. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... my beer must have been done by that point of the article Yes, lEFT not right.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I think this is done. – PeeJay 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great read overall. If it wasn't for the image issues and the fact that it was Man U, I would encourage you to go for FA. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to most of your concerns. The ones I've left blank I will see to when I have a little more time (uni work is very taxing!). – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Csisc edit

I think that the work can have FA Status. However, I think personally that Broadcasting can be more developed by involving the list of the corporations having the right to broadcast the match. --Csisc (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. If I can find that info, I'll add it. – PeeJay 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the tournament broadcasters I could find, but for the countries with multiple broadcasters, I can't confirm which (if not both) showed the final. If it's anything like the UK, both will have shown it, but I can't confirm that, so I don't expect the table I've added to last very long. – PeeJay 16:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2008_UEFA_Champions_League_Final/archive1&oldid=646423629"