Jump to content

Talk:2001 UEFA Super Cup/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:2001 UEFA Super Cup

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Adam4267 (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 23 August 2011 (→Criteria: Pass). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adam4267 (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2.  Done
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3.  Done
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4.  Done
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5.  Done
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4] Done
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5] Done
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Looks good so far, I will go into it more comprehensively soon. Adam4267 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessement

[edit]

1.
Lead
Should be football not association football.

the annual UEFA Super Cup IS contested.

Its correct the way it is, is redundant as contested between provides the detail. If it was the start of a sentence it would be included but here it does need to be as it follows on from the start of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nationality of the clubs need to be in the lead twice? If so then Bayern Munich of Germany and Liverpool of England doesn't sound right to me. How about (between) German club Bayern Munich and English club Liverpool

Its not mentioned twice in the lead unless you mean in the infobox, anyway I'll change it to the way you suggested. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All three of Liverpool's previous appearances should be mentioned.

Done NapHit (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The score of Bayern's penalty shoot-out need not be mentioned.

Yes it should as that is how they won the champions league otherwise a reader who is unaware of football conventions would not understand how Bayern won the match. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact they won on a penalty shooutout is correct, the score (5-4) should not be in the lead as that would be more confusing to people who don't know a lot about football. Adam4267 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't. The sentence states "Bayern won the 2000–01 UEFA Champions League, defeating Spanish team Valencia 5–4 in a penalty shootout after the match had finished 1–1." There is no ambiguity with the score of the penalty shootout, if it wasn't included then the reader would wonder how the penalty shootout is won. The scores of penalty shootout are usually given in match reports. At the end of the day that is how they won the match, therefore that makes the score even more relevant to being included. NapHit (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of team when talking about Alves and Valencia. Change one (Alves I think) to club.br>

I disagree, I don't see a problem with this. If its repetition then so is the one in the first sentence. Referring to one as a club and the other as a team would confuse readers. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the repetition of Spanish team but it just doesn't read right to me. Adam4267 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the structure now so this issue should be cleared up. NapHit (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background
There are no sources for Bayern or Liverpool winning the previous years Champions League and Uefa Cup. Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If possible can we have sources for each of the previous Super Cup appearances rather than just RSSSF. Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF is fine, it is a highly respected statistics organisation, there is no opint in adding individual refs when this one does the job perfectly. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides had played several matches already, which was unusual as the Super Cup would normally have been the first significant match the two teams had played.
Source needed Adam4267 (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed this not really sure it is unusual. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern had already played four matches in the 2001–02 Fußball-Bundesliga. They were fifth in the table after they had won two matches, drew one and lost one match. Need to re-write this. It does not read correctly. Adam4267 (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ye its the table bit I've removed it and just left the results in. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should say that they were fifth. Adam4267 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added it back NapHit (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As winners of the 2000–01 FA Cup, Liverpool faced Manchester United in the 2001 FA Charity Shield; Liverpool beat United 2–1.[4] They had also played one match in the 2001–02 FA Premier League; a 2–1 win over West Ham United. Should be
Liverpool had defeated Manchester United 2-1 in the Charity Shield. They also beat West Ham 2-1 in their first Premier League match of the season. Adam4267 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure re-wording it your way removes the context over how they qualified for the charity shield, I've re-wrote it a bit. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were also doubts over whether Steven Gerrard would be fit to play after an ankle injury meant he (had) not played for Liverpool this season.[7] Not exactly what the source says, need to clear it up. Also missing word. Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the source doesn't say that there were doubts over whether he would be able to play. It says "the journey was made worthwhile for them (Liverpool fans) with the sight of Steven Gerrard emerging from the tunnel after an ankle injury had curtailed his early-season involvement." Adam4267 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may not say he was a doubt but the source intimates it. The first bit of the sentence confirms this, just becuase the source does not explicitly say he was a doubt doesn't he wasn't. The first sentence makes it abundantly clear he was a doubt otherwise they wouldn't mention it. NapHit (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the he was ruled out for there previous matches but they knew he would be ok to play in this one. So thats why it was a "welcome sight" to see his first appearance of the season. If you do a google news archive search there is nothing about the injury leading up to the match [1] whereas there are several results from before [2]. Therefore I think he was not "a doubt" leading up to the match. But he clearly had been injured in the previous weeks. Adam4267 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the sentence to say he was expected to play despite his injuries. NapHit (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Summary
No further goals were scored and the referee blew for full-time with the final score 3–2 to Liverpool. Is this necessary? Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it is its better than having the match summary ending abruptly. I've had this sentence in other articles that have recently been promoted to GA and no reviewer has complained about it. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details

Post-match
Should be balanced between Liverpool and Bayern. Nothing about how this match affected Bayern, or how they did in Europe next season, or how they did in Intercontinental cup. There is a lot about what Liverpool hoped to do next season, but it needs to be said what they actually achieved.

The reason the section has more about Liverpool is because the source does not provide much of Bayern's reaction to the match. Therefore I'm limited to what I can write about Bayern, as there is more about Liverpool it is natural that slightly more is written, especially as they won five trophies in a calendar year, a feat rarely achieved. As for what happened next season that's irrelevant in my opinion. The article is about a UEFA Super Cup match, to write about how the team's fared in the Champions League is off-topic. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the interview with Owen is maybe not relevant. It seems like he isn't really talking about the Super Cup. Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its relevant since Liverpool won five trophies in a year it mention s how it was a dream to win the super cup and how they want to go on, which is relevant given the section header. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of his interview isn't actually about the super cup and the bits that aren't should't be in the article. Adam4267 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removed it NapHit (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2.
If possible could you try and link to match reports for the previous super cup wins. Adam4267 (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your going to have to elaborate on this, if you mean the wiki links they're in the article so I'm not sure what you mean. NapHit (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3.

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_UEFA_Super_Cup/GA1&oldid=446350809"