Talk:2005 FIFA Club World Championship final

2005 FIFA Club World Championship final 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
Date	Process	Result
October 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Football: England / Liverpool Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Liverpool task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Japan Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:48, May 4, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Image copyright problem with Image:FIFA Club World Championship 2005 logo.png[edit]

The image Image:FIFA Club World Championship 2005 logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch invader[edit]

WAsn't this the final where near the begining of the match someone jumped onto the goalnets and held up play for 10 miniutes? The C of E (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 FIFA Club World Championship Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this over the next few days. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As per [1][2][3], it seems that many statements have been copy pasted from reference no.8, 10 an 15. I think the statements should be changed to indirect statements from direct ones in order to respect the copyright laws.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Just one problem, the lead section has no reference, however almost all points have been referred later in the article, I will like to see some references for the lead.~~
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	~~Reference no.1, 3 and 7 doesn't seems reliable as the organization is amateur and is based on contributors~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	The statement "Their pressure was rewarded when they took the lead in the 27th minute" seems to be original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some more details are needed to be added, some of them are that the proceedings were delayed due to a pause for silence in memory of Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez's father and a pitch invader
	3b. 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.	The article doesn't describes much about the talk about the disallowed goals of Liverpool, please find sources and add much content about that so that we can make the "Post-match" section more neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Would prefer something like File:ENG-GER 1966-07-30.svg~~
	7. Overall assessment.	Article passed

You do realise that most of these statements that you have highlighted are quotes, which obviously cannot be changed as they are direct from the person. They have been referenced so they do not fail copyright. Some of the other problems are ridiculous tow words matching, that's not copyright. In most cases its the name of the player. NapHit (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mark them as quotes, just give brief summary of what as said. for example, Adding that "We've not travelled all the way to Japan to go sightseeing. can be changed to He added that they haven't come all way to Japan for sightseeing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have to be marked as quotes as they ARE quotes. There isn't a problem here, as long as the quotes are referenced there is no copyright issue, as you are referencing the source, instead of just having the quotes without a source which is a copyright issue. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed the article for that criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the lead has no references is because all the information is referenced later on, see WP:LEAD. NapHit (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the policy, its recommended to cite content likely to be challenged, still if it has been cited later in the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the lead is cited in the main text, therefore it does not need to be cited in the lead, I have had articles promoted to FA with no references in the lead because what is in the lead is referenced later on. All the stuff in the lead is referenced further down, there is no need to duplicate refs. On a sidenote why are you reviewing one thing at a time it would be much quicker for you to review the article in one go, and this is generally what most reviewers do. The process is getting dragged out this way. NapHit (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RSSSF is a highly reliable source of information for football, it is considered a reliable source by wikipedia, and has been used in featured content, such as Liverpool F.C. and List of UEFA Super Cup winners. The passage you've flagged as original research is referenced at the end of the following sentence so there is no need to reference it twice in succession. I'm not sure anymore needs to be added from ref 8 there are enough quotes in the section any more would just be overkill, and the information at the start is alreasy included. Regarding the benitez bit, where have you got this information? I can't find it in the refs. I'm not sure anymore needs to be added from Benitez the quotes I have used sum up his feelings well, we have to strike a balance between both teams, any more would swing the balance in Liverpool's favour. NapHit (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benitez's comments are here, also i left a suggestion in the GA review, which will make the section neutral enough. Also, I am talking of the words "Their pressure was rewarded", they seems both original research and and not adhering to WP:NPOV. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to add any more quotes from benitez, the post match section has a paragraph on each, adding any more would weigh it in favour of liverpool. Per the disallowed goals, adding "much more would skew the neutrality, the way its discussed is neutral enough, adding anymore would again favour liverpool. NapHit (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like an image like the one you displayed, but I don't have the means to produce one and the last time I asked for one my request was ignored. Plus you can't fail an article at GA on images, seeing as there already a few, this is not an issue. NapHit (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{Just some clarification) I said that would prefer, however that was just a normal comment, that is surely not an issue, and for sure the article will be not failed because of that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for future I would suggest you choose your words carefully, simply saying would be nice to have an image like this. Also the phrase "Their pressure was rewarded" is not NPOV or original research, it follows on from the paragraph before which states that Sao Paulo began to exert more pressure, therefore their pressure was rewarded with a goal, I'll change rewarded to resulted but everything else is fine.NapHit (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! By the way, there is just one more issue, if that is solved, i shall pass the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source for the pitch invader or the minute of silence, it's not mentioned in any of the ones currently used. So unless one comes up I can't include these details. NapHit (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for minute of silence. Harrias ^talk 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caption on picture two mentions pitch invader Harrias ^talk 20:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As does the Daily Mail Harrias ^talk 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added this info thanks to the sources Harrias has provided, thanks to him for this. NapHit (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles has passed, Congrats! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2005 FIFA Club World Championship Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]