Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 2020 Final/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [1].

UEFA Euro 2020 Final[edit]

Nominator(s): — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man[reply]

This article is about the final of Euro 2020, the football tournament which took place a few months ago (even though it's 2021!). As someone from England, this was a tough one to write about - it was first major final that the team have reached in my lifetime, and with England holding the lead into the second half it looked for while like it might be our year. It wasn't to be though, the curse of the penalty shootout struck again! Italy were a great team though, and played really well throughout the tournament, so that's the way it goes. As ever, all feedback welcome and I'll be happy to return the favour with a review for anyone else who needs one. Just let me know! — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

Would be listing every image in the article, and adding my concerns (if any)

Alt text seems fine.

Most of the images are default sized, except the info-box image, which probably needs to be fixed.

All images seem relevant here.

File:UEFA Euro 2020 Final, Wembley Stadium.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket. But, do we need a fixed image size in the infobox?
File:Wembley-Stadion 2013 16x10.jpg — Licencing fine, a retouched image, which was initially "own work" of a user.
File:UEFA Euro 2020 Trophy.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
File:Bra-Cos (8).jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
File:Mattarella UEFA Euro 2020 Final.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
File:UEFA Euro 2020 Final - Sergio Mattarella with Gianni Infantino and Gabriele Gravina.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
File:Shaw - July 2015 (cropped).jpg — Licencing fine, reviewed by a Flickr reviewer.
File:20150616 - Portugal - Italie - Genève - Leonardo Bonucci (cropped 2).jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user.
File:ITA-ENG 2021-07-11.svg — Licencing fine, own work of a user.
File:Gianluigi Donnarumma (31895135436) (cropped).jpg — Licencing fine, I confirmed from the Flickr link.

Great, Pass for image review. The only issue to far too minor to prevent it for passing the review. Would appreciate your comments for this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

"beating final debutants England" - this reads a bit oddly, like they were the last team ever to debut. Maybe change to "first-time finalists"?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in terms of European Championship titles, it put Italy level with France" - on how many titles?
Done. (Although we did already say it was their second title further up). — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"UEFA announced the tournament would be held" => "UEFA announced that the tournament would be held"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923 (excluding 2001 to 2006, when the stadium was being rebuilt)" - I think "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup from the White Horse Final of 1923 until it closed in 2000" might be more elegant
Well that's not quite the same thing, as we're also saying that the FA cup final has been at Wembley since 2007. I have reworded a bit anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They two sides" => "The two sides"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"behind the 35-match streak of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" => "behind the 35-match streaks of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" (assuming the Spain one was also 35)
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the only other final they have reached" => "the only other final they had reached" (then it won't need changing if they reach another)
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ciro Immobile and Lorenzo Insigne scored two further attempts" - slightly odd wording, simply saying "two further goals" would be better I think
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to use Immobile's full name again in the next sentence
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international" - should that say "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international final" (or some better way to word it to avoid the repetition of final)? The current wording makes it sound like it was literally only the ninth international he refereed.
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"replacing the 4–2–3–1 formation [...] to..." - either "replacing with" or "changing to", but not "replacing to"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"including one who lost a tooth and another suffered a broken hand" => "including one who lost a tooth and another who suffered a broken hand"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" a low shot on the half-volley" - link half-volley to somewhere appropriate?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link substitution?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link corner?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"bringing on the attacking player Bukayo Saka in place of Trippier" - need a comma after this to close the clause
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"England free kick in injury time reached Stones" => "An England free kick in injury time reached Stones"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Football Association interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" - either "The Football Association's interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" or "The interim chairman of the Football Association Peter McCormick OBE"
Done. (I've chopped the OBE too). — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of English players immediately removed the runners-up medals from their necks." => "The majority of English players removed the runners-up medals from their necks immediately after receiving them." - at present it reads like Eder brought the trophy on and the England players at that point took off medals we hadn't been told they were given
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Čeferin also handed the trophy to Italian captain Chiellini" - why "also"? What else did he do?
I have moved this point earlier in the paragraph and combined it with the medals. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a parade in Rome the day after the final on 12 July, attended by thousands, the team travelled from the Villa Borghese gardens to the Quirinal Palace." - comma after thousands should probably be a semi-colon
I've split it into three sentences. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"England players Saka, Sancho and Rashford, were subjected" - no reason for that comma
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rashford mural has its own article, which could be linked
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Johnson also hoped the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid" => "Johnson also hoped that Britain and Ireland's proposed bid"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "digital mural"?
I don't know what it is technically, but that's the term most sources seem to be using. Can you think of a better way to phrase? Not seeing an appropriate link either. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two tiny paragraphs under "UEFA investigation"
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't articles on major international finals normally have a section on the reaction/comments from the press in the relevant countries?
I've added a pargraph on this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I got - nice read overall (other than the bad memories, obviously)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude I think, between us, we've got to all your comments, thanks! Do let us know if there's anything else. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....I made these tweaks - looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

I have made a few minor edits while reading through, ones I thought were not controversial, but feel free to revert if I was wrong. My comments so far:

only for their last three --> that is two "only for" constructions in consecutive sentences
Tweaked. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect global audience numbers in the lead
Added (and to the body too, since it wasn't there) — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to add some press analyses of the game in the lead
London Borough of Brent --> too much detail, just London suffices I think
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bit odd to have the article not start with the Background section
I've moved it to the top. I've also added a boilerplate paragraph which is also found at UEFA Euro 2016, describing the competition and its format. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
caption: I would add London
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in which Germany defeated the Czech Republic 2–1 after extra time via the golden goal rule --> we are really deviating here from the topic. At the very least the golden goal rule bit is superfluous
I've chopped the whole scoreline.
Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923, with the exception of those between 2001 and 2006, when the old stadium had closed and the new stadium was being built --> off topic
Reduced. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Special conditions, including ... --> the verb is quite far away from the subject. Just a matter of style but I'd say: Special conditions applied to the supporters from Italy, including ..
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
once in 1966, as hosts --> that was already mentioned, so I'd drop at least ",as hosts" (and then tweak the next sentence)
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the final taking place in London, Italy were the "home team" for administrative purposes. --> this is in the wrong position I think: it breaks the flow of past achievements. There also probably should not be a paragraph break here
Moved, but whether or not to break the para is somewhat horses for courses, because others object to large paragraphs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
they beat Yugoslavia in 1968 after a replay --> why bring this up again? Just a few lines before it syas "taly won the European Championship in 1968"
Chopped the whole sentence. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
having previously been eliminated in the semi-finals on two occasions, in 1968 (by Yugoslavia) and in 1996 (by Germany) as hosts --> again feels unnecessarily repetitive, having been described in the 1st paragraph
Gone. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
first at a major tournament since winning the 1966 FIFA World Cup as hosts --> "as hosts" feels again repetitive
Already done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
against Greece in 2004 and Portugal in 2016 --> repetition of the years seems unnecessary and with Portugal mentioned twice it gets a bit tricky to follow. Would it not be simpler to say something along the lines of "England also became the third nation of the 21st century to play in a European Championship final as hosts after Portugal in 2004 and France in 2016. Both previous hosts lost their respective finals, Portugal against Greece and France against Portugal"
Yep, sure. A lot of this guff was in the article before I came to work on it TBH, and I wouldn't have included it myself so happy to prune! — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Italy's aforementioned --> I'm not so sure about that aforementioned: many other things have also been mentioned before, so why use it here?
Removed. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something to consider: In the 20th century, three host countries made it to the final and all won (Italy in 1968, ...)
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italy sought to win a major tournament for the first time in 15 years, their last major triumph being victory in the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final at the Olympiastadion in Berlin on penalties against France --> too much detail for my liking, straying off topic, plus it was already mentioned in 1st paragraph
Removed. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This tournament success --> A bit curious ... is the success referring to winning the final?
I've removed this too. It's pointless trivia. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
major tournament --> duplication of tournament in same sentence
Gone. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins in the group stage of UEFA Euro 1980 --> should there not be some punctuation after wins?
I have inserted a colon. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
record of ten wins out of ten --> other countries have done this as well, or is it a record for Italy itself?
I don't think this was meant to be a "record" as in a superlative, more that it's just a "record" of their performance. I've reworded for clarity. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italy then beat Wales --> repetitive construction after "Italy then beat Switzerland"
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italy dominated their quarter-final --> according to whom?
Actually, they didn't. So re-worded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
equalised for Spain to level --> isn't that a bit double up?
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also in Group D --> also repetition
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
qualification rivals Czech Republic --> perhaps overuse of rivals here: they just happened to compete for top spot in qualifying, but not really rivals in the Scotland sense.
Removed that detail. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a difficult 1–0 win over Croatia --> according to whom?
Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Germany at Wembley in the second round --> elsewhere this is called the round of 16
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to see England qualify for a first European Championship final and a first final of any major tournament since 1966 --> already mentioned
Trimmed. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II, UK prime minister Boris Johnson --> why mention Mr Johnson's job but not Elizabeth's?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wishing them good luck in the final --> what about the Italians? We need something for neutrality
If you can find anything we've missed, please let us know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prematch: I'm missing a subsection describing the experts' expectations, the coaches' views, etc. And even the dreaded bookmakers had probably something to say

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domestically, he officiated the KNVB Cup final in 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2021, as well as the Johan Cruyff Shield in 2009 and 2012. --> straying off topic here I think
Removed. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(one win, one draw and two losses) --> why mention this? If I were Kuijpers I would not be happy be with this as this suggests that I influence who wins or not
Removed. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
who suffered an Achilles injury in Italy's quarter-final win over Belgium --> was already mentioned so no need for this
I've trimmed it a bit. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to see whether he could participate --> and, could he?
No. I've reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I miss the mention of the Italy coach here in the Team selection section
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wing-backs --> link? (plus I thought that wing backs were a 5-3-2 thing, not a 3-4-3 thing, but I must admit I can't keep up with all these numbers)
Linked. As for the 5-3-2. yeah that's what I thought too, not that I'm any sort of expert on this. The source does seem to confirm that it's both 3-4-3 and that there were wing-backs, however].
Two hours before the final, footage --> shouldn't that be "Footage from two hours before the final showed "
Amended. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
without paying for a ticket --> maybe I'm a bit over picky here but this suggests to me that normally people pay on the spot for a ticket. Perhaps "without having paid" or simply "without a ticket"?
Amended. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huge crowds --> not being a native speaker I'm not sure so just checking, but isn't huge a word one would find in the tabloids whereas Large would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia?
Yes, correct. Amended. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Football Association said it would conduct a full review --> has the rview been completed and published?
Nope. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
started at 19:45 --> instead of adding local time (19:00 UTC) in the Match section, it is better to do that here, at the first use of time
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The national anthems of each -->not really part of the Closing ceremony
Not sure where else it belongs, so I've expanded the scope of the section with an "and anthems" added. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides took the knee before --> Should this not be expanded on and given its own subsection, given the controversy about this prior to the final?
What controversy was that? According to the Guardian report, both sides took the knee and it passed without incident. Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to make a big thing of it. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notable spectators --> seems a bit light on Italians, which may have been the case of course
Indeed. Too many Italians flying into London during COVID was bad optics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The match kicked-off --> I'm not so sure about that hyphen
Removed. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
rainy conditions,[88] in front of 67,173 spectators,[88] --> although helpful for the person who will do a source review, it is a bit intrusive for the average reader: nicer to put the refs at the end I'd say
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Shaw image: is there not one of him in an England kit?
I don't think so, I can't find one anywhere. I have swapped the image for a much closer crop (without Man Utd badges visible) and more recent (though less good-quality) pic - the original was from 2015 and he doesn't really look the same any more! — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a cross into the penalty area, but his cross --> any way to avoid the duplication of cross?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the attacking third --> this may be getting a bit too cryptic for the average reader
Reworded. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
into the England box --> box might be a bit too colloquial. Penalty area is what you use elsewhere
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italy kicked first in the penalty shoot-out --> was there another toss for this? who won and what did they choose?
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
stuttered run-up --> link perhaps?
I don't think there's a link to that. I've removed it, since it probably isn't necessary and is a bit of a POV comment perhaps. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sudden death --> link
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post match: what did the coaches say? Perhaps a few players' views as well
Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson also hoped that the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup had not been derailed by the scenes of crowd trouble at the final --> this should probably live in the UEFA Investigation section
I think it's probably okay where it is as it's just his opinion and follows on from the previous sentence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcasting and viewership --> anything on who the analysts were in Italy (just to avoid any UK bias)?
I can't find anything on analysts for RAI or Sky in Italy, but at least we have the commentators in there. It's not really a bias, just an issue of availability of information. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
around 73.7% --> interesting mix of rough estimate ("around") and accuracy (decimal point)
Well, it's horses for courses, could be "around 73%" or "around 70%" and those are just fine, so no reason why "around 73.7%" isn't fine, but I've just removed "around". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
of the market share --> is that of all people in the country? or all watching TV that night?
Watching TV. Italy has a population of much more than around 22 million. If it had meant 73.7% of the Italian population watched the match, it would have said that, as it would have been simply unbelievable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what about global or European wide audience numbers? That really should be mentioned for this type of event
Done. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon could you take another look and see what is outstanding please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. I Support on prose. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Grapple X[edit]

Full disclosure: my father is Italian, this match was perfect, and Chiellini is a genius. Revision reviewed

Shocking! Italy were a really good team, though, no doubt about it... — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian-language sources like La Gazzetta dello Sport could do with using the language= parameter, and trans-title= when the title has been translated into English. For example ref 122 uses the language field and retains the original title; ref 123 doesn't use it and has translated the original title.
I've put the original title in the |title= parameter for all of them, and indicated that they are in Italian. They don't all have translated titles, though, I don't speak Italian myself! — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having only one translated when there are a few in Italian isn't ideal; if you'd like I'll add a translation to all of them or we could lose the one we do have, either approach is fine but I wouldn't be in favour of a mix. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ
@Grapple X: yes, feel free to add them. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 90 states it was "Archived 12 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine", same with ref 93. This seems nonstandard with the other archival links; given that all of the archiving uses the Wayback Machine (archive.org) this is an odd thing to point out only twice.
I've removed those references to the Wayback Machine. It was just a different template. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a date for ref 73? I don't have Times access but it's unusual to see a newspaper not date their items.
An ISSN for the Times but not elsewhere?
I've swapped out that Times source altogether, as it seems the entire article changed frequently on the day of publication, with neither the live nor archived version matching what the text said. So I've reworded a bit with a new source. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can see at present. Sources seem reliable and high-quality, instances of citing a tweet are used only to verify a direct quote which is fine per WP:TWEET. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: I think I've looked at all the above points. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just one point above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added those titles using english title casing but you can change that to sentence casing if you wish (which is what it would be in Italian). Let me know if you have a preference but otherwise I would consider this passed on sources. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X[edit]

Going to look at a content review in addition to sourcing.

"Originally scheduled for 12 July 2020, the match had been postponed along with the rest of the tournament due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe." This isn't mentioned in the article body—in fact the "Background" section has no mention of the postponement. I know this isn't the article for the tournament proper but a mention would be beneficial especially as we have the situation where the 2020 Final is being played in July 2021.
"lost to France in 2000 via a golden goal" Not all of us lived through the years of tyranny involved with the golden goal, suggest wikilinking it for clarity
"Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins". Could simplify this to "Italy won three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments"
Luke Shaw image is pretty terrible, let's be honest. Might be able to get a better crop out of File:Luke Shaw, Manchester United v Newcastle United, 11 September 2021 (44) (cropped).jpg, the resolution might not be any better but since he's looking forward and not down it would at least seem less like a Crimewatch still.
"Chiellini later claimed that he had "cursed" Saka before his penalty miss, by shouting "Kiricocho" as the England player struck the ball"—Without explanation, this is some fairly inside-baseball stuff; the source explains what "Kiricocho" means/represents and we should really follow suit, even just briefly. Something like "Chiellini later claimed that he had "cursed" Saka before his penalty miss, by shouting "Kiricocho"—a common superstitious term among footballers—as the England player struck the ball" or better words to that effect.
There's mention that RAI are the state broadcaster for Italy, for context it might be worth adding the same for the BBC.
All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: many thanks for the review. I think I've looked at all your points. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that looks good to me--the added depth re: postponement especially, article now functions as a standalone much better. Happy to support in light of the improvements. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: we're two days from the mystery "unwritten" three-week threshold here and have all the pre-requisites. Can you let us know if there's anything more we need to do to ensure a timely promotion please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any rule, written or otherwise, regarding three weeks or three supports. Other than three supports being the minimum usually required for it to be considered that a consensus to promote has been reached after any length of time. It is unusual for a nomination with only three reviews to be promoted after only three weeks, but as I will not be promoting any nominations by WikiCup contestants until next month I haven't been through this in detail and it is possible that it is one of those unusual exceptions. The standard answer to the FAQ "What can I do to get my nomination speedily promoted/" is "Get further detailed scrutiny of it by further reviewers". This applies pretty much however many reviews/supports it already has.

On a separate but related point, note that for my current nom Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) I asked for further reviews on the WikiCup talk page even though it already had three supports and has now been open for more than three weeks. (You were kind enough to provide one of them, for which thank you.) I did this because I considered there was no chance of it being prompted before the end of the month with only three supports.

I hope that this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does Gog, of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: so this one now has four content supports and the usual source and image reviews thanks to Grapple's recent support. @Ian Rose, is there any chance this might be promotable before the end of the WikiCup on Sunday? Do we need to do anything further in order to make that happen? I'm aware it's a fairly recent nomination, but if you don't ask you don't get! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi TRM, Amakuru, forgive me if I missed something but I couldn't see the timings for the subs and cards in the match report cited... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ian Rose: thanks for the query. The timings are given in the Guardian minute-by-minute report, so I've just added that as an explicit extra source above the two team lists. Hopefully that satisfies your concern. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmm, maybe I'm suffering temporary blindness but I can only see the timings for the subs, not the cards (understand that I'm not incredibly fussed about seeing times for the cards, only that if we present timings that they be properly cited)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ian Rose: ah, it's not mentioned in the panel on the left, but all of the cards are mentioned in the minute-by-minute updates, I checked them this morning. For example, for Nicola Barella's yellow card on 47 minutes, the source has an update on page 4 saying: "47 min: Kane powers down the left and is clipped on the heel by Barella, who becomes the first name in the referee’s notebook tonight.". Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah-ha... Not sure the uninitiated would immediately equate "first name in the referee’s notebook" with a yellow card -- I suppose they'd report a red card as "given his marching orders..."? Anyway I'll pay it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  True enough, it's certainly a rather obscure jargony phrase! The Guardian minute-by-minutes are always a bit more of a colloquial and chatty tone than a regular report would be, although I'd hazard that anyone reasonably familiar with football would be able to connect those two statements together... as for red card, yes "given his marching orders" would cover it or even "ordered to have an early bath" — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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