Talk:Athletic Bilbao in European football

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Athletic Bilbao in European football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Initial review

Lead

• Bilbao > Bilbao, Spain

Fixed.

• Why is La Liga in italics?

something in my head told me foreign names should be italicised? Must have been wrong, fixed.

Traditions

• "tragic 1920s star Pichichi", tragic seems a somewhat WP:PEACOCK word.

Only word I could think of to summarise his short life without going into unnecessary detail. But I agree anyone interested can just click on the link to his article. Fixed.

1950s: The Magyars and the Babes

• End of the first team needs a source

the Real Madrid bit? Seems a bit unnecessary. Added anyway. If you meant something else, sorry, please correct me.

• Is it suitable to use A.C. Milan as the team name, the club's current players all appear to use simply Milan when referring to the club. I'm not overly familiar with Italian naming, so I'm assuming it's similar to piping out F.C.?

Wasn't sure if I should show the prefix to differentiate the city (also linked in the same sentence) from the club, but I agree the team is referred to solely as Milan. If you think its OK like that, great. Fixed.

• Link European Cup, first mention outside the lead can be included, per WP:OVERLINK.

Fixed.

• F.C. Porto > FC Porto

Fixed.

• "famous winger", famous would be seem to be another WP:PEACOCK word.

Fixed, changed to 'international'.

1960s and early 1970s: Diminishing returns

• "by contrast, two years earlier Athletic were 5th but were not awarded a place)." Is there a known reason why they weren't awarded a place despite finishing higher?

The Fairs Cup had a confusing entry system not based on league position until 1969 which I don't fully understand (did Bilbao hold a trade fair between 1962 and 1964 which suddenly made Athletic eligible?). Have removed the whole mention of the thing instead of trying to go deeper into it.

• Ref 14 could probably be moved to the end of the paragraph as it would appear to support the information simply by not listing any participation.

Fixed.

• "but the quality of their league was demonstrated as domestic rivals Dinamo Zagreb went on to win the cup." Seems like a bit of a loose association there and no real actual relevance to Bilbao. Perhaps just state how far Red Star progressed?

Have added Red Star's fate and took out the 'quality of league' bit, but I do think it's worth a brief mention that a club from the same country won it, particularly since its Yugoslavia rather than one of the 'big' leagues.

• "after receiving a bye to the quarter-finals", do we know why they received a bye?

Luck of the draw. Have added it like that, not sure if there is a more technical way to express that?

• The Liverpool section of the fifth paragraph seems like a very long sentence. Perhaps start a second sentence at "When that failed to provide a winner"?

Fixed as suggested.

• "or specifically the selection of coloured cards", could this be explained more? For example how do you win? Picking the right colour? Also, is this comparable to tossing a coin?

really not sure to be honest. The source says "The invention of penalties would come years later. Luck was in a cardboard (the coin was no longer used), green or red. «Aguirre chose red. And the other told him 'no', that the 'reds' were them. So Aguirre replied 'well what else, red for you,' [Liverpool] "recalls Iribar. And it came out green. To the next round." so it seems the teams picked a colour each, and an envelope contained one of them. And Athletic almost selected the wrong one, but Liverpool had dibs on 'their' red colour, which turned out to be the wrong choice. It seems more open to corruption than the coin (the cards could be marked and changed by slight of hand?) and in fact the Liverpool source says "Liverpool lost on coin toss!". I've amended the text slightly.

• Unlink Cup Winners' Cup in the final paragraph, already linked previously.

second link was to the season article, I've unpiped it now.

• "the club's only trip to Bulgaria to date", seems a little odd to point this out. They've been to several countries only once. Simply referring to them as "Bulgarian side" or something similar would suffice.

Fixed as suggested.

Late 1970s: UEFA Cup finalists

• Italians is linked to Football in Italy which doesn't have a major relevance to the text. Also this appears to be the only time a country is linked like this in the article, I would remove.

Fixed as suggested, also took out another A.C. from Milan.

• " It was the first time Athletic had played another Spanish team", in European competition? I would clarify this if that's the case.

Surely nobody would read that as the first time they, a Spanish club, had ever played against another Spanish club?? Amended anyway.

• "before a 0–0 in Bilbao" > before a 0-0 draw in Bilbao?

Fixed.

• Link Serie A:Fixed.
• Perhaps expand on why Zoff and Iribar were referred to as twins. Seems a little odd to label them so and add no reason why.

The reasons why are in the source, but I've added to it as well.

1980s: No joy in European Cup

• "an old foe returned to haunt Athletic", comes across as rather journalistic.

Yeah I know what you mean. Fixed.

1990s: Italian trips and Champions League

• "In the next qualification in 1997", should that be "in their next..."?

Yeah I know what you mean. Fixed.

• "saw Athletic finish runners-up" > finish as runners-up?

Yeah I know what you mean. Fixed.

2000s: Group stage experience

• "and set the tone for a very disappointing domestic season in which the club narrowly avoided relegation", I'd drop the very from this sentence and it needs a source.

Fixed.

• In general, we normally name things as they were at the time, football teams included, such as Stevenage Borough, Newton Heath, etc. So do we need Ecomax's later name? On a side note, were the club officially named Ecomax? I can't find any reference to them being named that on other pages?

Whatever you think for the name is fine with me. It was the owner's company but I think they were only named that for one season. They are referred to as Ecomax on Athletic's site, as Cluj on Bdfutbol, as CFR Ecomax Cluj on the intertoto wiki season article and as CFR Cluj on the UEFA website link on that article. It is less embarrassing to be knocked out by a decent club like CFR instead of complete unknown mystery Ecomax, so personally I was quite pleased when I found out it was the same club. Only small issue is the sources for that tie call them Ecomax so it might be confusing if all links are CFR Cluj.

• "as 16-year-old Iker Muniain became the youngest player in a European match", was that for the club or ever? Needs clarification.

Fixed.

Early 2010s: Europa League final

• "with an impressive 2–1 victory at home", impressive is very much a WP:PEACOCK word to watch.

Removed the word, but I only included it to emphasise the margin between the teams, it was 2-1 going on 6-1.

• Final sentence under that has no refs.

Fixed.

• Do we know what happened to the officers who shot the fan with a flashball yet?

Trial date coming up, though it will probably be a whitewash, they can't prove who gave the order to shoot so looks like nobody will be found guilty. New refs added (not saying that of course!)

• Second half of the fourth paragraph is unsourced. Comments on Bielsa's adventurous style particularly need sourcing.

Fixed.

• Perhaps merge the "unwelcome echo" sentence with the paragraph below. Seems a bit odd out there on its own.

Fixed.

• Final sentence is unsourced.

Fixed.

2014–15 season

• Unlink FC Porto, linked previously in the article.

Fixed.

2015–16 season

• Same issue as Ecomax above, do we need the name change for Inter Baku?

Fixed.

• "there the adventure ended", again sounds like journalistic sensationaling slightly.

Fixed.

• Source needed for the last sentence.

Fixed.

2016–17 season

• "in the process. which is also the club record for most goals by one player in a match", sentence needs a comma rather than a full stop.

Fixed (reworded slightly).

2017–18 season

• Last sentence of the first paragraph is unsourced.

Fixed.

Player records

• The first four notes start in upper case, while the last four start in lower case.

Fixed.

Managerial statistics

• Same as above section, if you're converting them to upper case, the notes here need to be addressed also.

Fixed.

Statistics by opponent and country

• Table appears to be unsourced?

Fixed.

References

• Ref 1 is a note rather than a reference.

Fixed.

• Use the full name of the Rsssf, The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. Ref also needs authors.

Not sure the name is necessary to be honest, I've checked and its been cited as RSSSF in articles over 24,000 times (and RSSSSF nine times, haha). Amended anyway.

• Refs 16, 26, 32, 48, 49, 93, 103, 125, 129, 130, 131 and 172 need an author.

All fixed.

• Refs 25, 57, 78, 79 are dead links. Can these be salvaged or replaced?

All fixed.

• Some of the UEFA refs use UEFA as the publisher, some use the full organisation title and some use UEFA.com. Use one style for consistency.

Fixed, changed all to simply publisher=UEFA, if you think it would be better as website=UEFA.com|publisher=Union of European Football Associations, let me know and I'll swap it (same for RSSSF).

• Ref 50 needs a date.

Fixed.

• Ref 178 uses work for Goal.com where as the previous two uses list it under publisher, maintain one style for consistency.

All fixed.

• Ref 235 lists that author names first to last which is the opposite to the rest of the authors listed.

All fixed.

That's my initial run through. Nothing too big to worry about I would say. Interesting to see that this was a former FL candidate, given that another European football article (Hibernian) also raised the issue of these being more suited as lists. Perhaps a discussion is needed one day about what these articles are. I'm happy to go ahead with the review process in the mean time, there's plenty of text here to provide a balance to the tables. Placed on hold for now. Kosack (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and advice, I appreciate the time it will have taken you to look through it given the size. I have no issue with the amendments suggested and will try and get started on it tomorrow. I will add replies to each point in blue when I have addressed it.

In terms of the FL/GA, there was only a small amount of text in the FL submitted version and it appeared to be the case that I either had to lose that and meet some exacting format standards for the list, or add a lot more text and submit as a GA instead. In addition to Hibs, there are precedents at Celtic, Arsenal & Benfica which are GAs and Liverpool & Porto which are FAs, while only Rosenborg is a FL. Personally I would rather have it acknowledged as an interesting article to read that features some lists, rather than a near-perfectly formatted bunch of tables that don't really go into detail on the story behind the figures,which seemed to be the two options. Crowsus (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's all the requested fixes done, I appreciate you might spot other things if you go thorugh it again. Crowsus (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Nice work, I'm quite satisfied with your responses on the issues raised above. Only thing I would raise looking again, is the note list meant to generate in the short history section at the start? Seems slightly misplaced to me? Kosack (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kosack: Yeah it looks bad, just wasn't sure where to have the list placed to generate the note which is why I initially formatted it as a ref, so that it stayed 'out of the way'. To be honest, I don't know if it's needed, the problem was my reference beside it from the club stated it was their 30th entry, not counting the Latin Cup or the fact that they had a UCL+UEL season, so that was to clarify whey the figure differed. But would anyone be that bothered? I'd be happy to just remove it, or open to suggestions on how to deal with it better if you do think it should stay? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow up

A couple of points regarding the opening.

Infobox

• Could the record appearance holder and top goalscorer be included as in Liverpool F.C. in European football?

Fixed.

Lead

• Use the full name of UEFA during the first use in the article here, so UEFA > Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

Fixed.

• Looking at the lead, it's relatively short for a fairly substantial article. Maybe a paragraph about individuals such as most appearances/goals, best performing manager etc, could be included?

Yeah I agree couldn't think what to include but that's a good suggestion so have done so.

In regards to that note, I would say to add a brief mention in the text of the situation (finishing third resulting in entering Europa League) in the relevant section. After that, the note could probably be removed as it is already mentioned in the results by season table as well which would probably explain it sufficiently. Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've just added explanations to the sections concerned.

@Crowsus: Nice work, I have no further concerns regarding this article. I'm happy that it meets the relevant GA criteria, promoting. Kosack (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kosack: Yay! Thank you again for taking the time to review it, aand for your constructive comments for improvements as was needed. Crowsus (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries, you did all the hard work. It's a nicely written piece, could be an FA in the making if you have the inclination. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK

@Kosack: Sorry to be a pest, I do intend to apply for a Did You Know nom, did you have any suggestions on what to use? Maybe Aduriz's scoring feats or the absence of foreign players but not sure how to phrase those in the small word limit (as you will know by now, I tend to use too many words!). Cheers for anything you can think of. Crowsus (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: No worries, there's a couple of really interesting bits.

• The laying of flowers at Pichichi's bust prior to a new team arriving.
• Playing the Mighty Magyars during the Hungarian revolution.
• Only using Basque players which is unique as far as I know (I remember Sociedad doing something similar but they've branched out now if I remember correctly).

For the no foreign players, something like...that Spanish football club Athletic Bilbao have competed over 30 times in European competitions despite only using Basque players? (Players of Basque origin more suitable perhaps?) Kosack (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)