The article has undergone a massive transformation recently, and after passing for Good Article status, I feel it is ready to be a Featured Article. NapHit 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved stuff from Buc
CommentNothing about Craig Bellamy's golf club celebration or the ref blowing for full time early. There are two sections titled "Route to the final".Ref #6 not dated, ref #23 not entered right and why are some dates are in brackets and some not?"causing the problems, stating that "Milan supporters" "that" is redundant and put a comma before the quote. "UEFA was further chastised by the clubs for their lack of provision for their disabled fans, only providing them with sixteen disabled tickets each" chastised? is that what you meant? and move "only" to after "with" or remove it altogether. "The second leg in Belgrade was won by Milan 2–1" move "2-1" to after "won". "knock-down" why the hyphen? "he was brought down by Lucio." I think "Lucio brought him down." would be better. "Kaká was put through by Seedorf." I think "Seedorf put through Kaká." would be better. "Argentinian" spelling. "Crouch scissor kicked Finnan's cross home." sounds a bit passive. "widely-reported" why the hyphen? "The next penalties were scored by Xabi Alonso, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard" I think "Xabi Alonso, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard scored next penalties" is better. "hastily-constructed" another hyphen, why?
Thanks for the comments I have addressed all the problems you mentioned, more comments would be helpful NapHit 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment How do I get one of my articles to "Godd" status? Isn't FA a stepdown from God status? (tongue in cheek) — BQZip01 —talk 05:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The article is about the final, yet there is a substantial section on the "route to the final", I would say disproportionately so. I agree that background and context is necessary, but we should also remember what the article is about. --Jameboy 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason the article is like that is because there is more information on the route to the final then the final itself, but in light of this, I will try and expand the final section a bit more NapHit 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be consistent throughout with A.C. Milan or AC Milan.
Not sure about the flow from title wins to ticket problems in the second para of the lead.
Before saying "only 9,000 tickets", context by saying something like "Out of x thousand..., only..."
In the problems section, you could wikilink both UEFA and Olympic Stadium.
"...closed the ground..."? Surely just closed entrances/turnstiles?
"...providing them with sixteen disabled tickets each..." - would state "only sixteen..." (or similar), to emphasise that it was inadequate.
"...Lille of France..." sounds a bit weird to me, I'd prefer "French club Lille...", similar for Anderlecht.
"Liverpool won the match 2–0, thanks to goals from Peter Crouch and Steven Gerrard; to ensure they finished top of Group C.[35]" - strange semi-colon separation.
"Bellamy celebrated by playing an imaginary golf shot, a reference to an incident at the team's Algarve hotel a week before the match, after Bellamy brandished a golf club at Riise.[37] Then on 74 minutes, Liverpool went ahead after Riise scored. Both Liverpool scorers were involved in a widely reported incident at their training camp the previous week.[38]" - these appear out of order...
"...night was soured late on..." - bit PoV.
Not sure the second and third paras of Post-match really relate to post-match. They more relate to statistics or something similar...
Why the See also section when the article in question is already wikilinked in the lead.
That's about all I have right now. Hope it helps! The Rambling Man 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I've dealt with these suggestions, more would be welcomeNapHit 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Issues
Lead: Stub about ticketing problems (remove "some") seems unimportant, unless you can wind it in more smoothly. Remove or substitue with more info on another aspect? Is "semi final" one word? Surely. (2a)
While on that, is "Problems before the match" best at the top? I'd have thought further down, so that it starts with "Route to the final".
What is "2007-1 long shot"?
We have "9th" but "eleventh". Reverse them: the boundary is normally nine/10. Tony(talk) 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done everything except the eleventh bit, because I cannot find it in the text NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved stuff from Buc
Comment
"UEFA was further chastised by the clubs for their lack of provision for their disabled fans, providing them with only sixteen disabled tickets each." sounds a bit passive.
"Milan and Liverpool are amongst the three most successful teams in Europe in terms of European Cup titles, with seven and five titles respectively." should this really be in the lead?
Isn't the "Match details" section really the match statistics?
Not really I don't think the line up can really be classed as statistic, although I can change the statistics bit to a sub-heading if needs beNapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing about the Opening ceremony.
no sources available for thisNapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This could mean the article fails 1b. But since I don't know of a current FA about an event with opening ceremony I'm not sure if it would be required. Buc 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot find a reliable source for info on the opening ceremony so I will have to leave it outNapHit 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there no free use image of Milan lifting the trophy? Just a suggestion, this wouldn't be required for it to become a FA.
not that I am aware of NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ref #11 date not in brackets all the rest are, need to be consistent.
Support I agree that an image of Milan lifting the trophy would be good. Is it just my browser? but the stadium image is overlapping the team stuff. Otherwise i support, all little problems seem to have been fixed. Woodym555 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixed the stadium picture problem more comments are welcome NapHit 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support a lot of good work has been put it. I'm still not happy with "This is due to the kit being their lucky kit (Italian: maglia fortunata), having won the European Cup/Champions League in this kit in five out of their six final wins. However, they have lost finals in this kit twice, most recently against Liverpool in 2005." - poor English. Also, I'm not sure the match ball deserves a whole section, least of all after the match summary, it'd be best of incorporated higher up I think. But good work. The Rambling Man 08:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed the sentence and moved the match ball section further up more comments are welcomeNapHit 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support looks like it's almost perfect now. Still some problems with the ref though. #39 isn't dated and some date are in brackets while some aren't. I also noticed a handful of other minor things. In the lead it says "the match the of". "Filippo Inzaghi scored on his 33rd birthday." sounds linke triva. The table at the end of the "Route to the final" section doesn't have a title. Buc 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixed the minor problems thanks for the comments more are welcome NapHit 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The article is called "2007 UEFA Champions League Final", yet more than half of the text doesn't deal with the actual topic, but with the "Route to the final"; this is entirely unacceptable. Also, the article fails to offer much information beyond what happened on the pitch (besides the tickets controversy) - there is no real analysis of the game, the referee is only mentioned in the statistics, no information on the international media coverage or the winner's celebrations. I would also expect a bit more information on the stadium and events surrounding the final in Athens. EnemyOfTheState 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! You mind telling me what the heck UEFA stands for in the lead without me having to click on the links to find out? Already a bad start. You should introduce what UEFA stands for in the lead.
UEFA is the most common form, it is what the clubs, journalists and fans use. The wikilink is there for a reason. I have never heard anyone use "Union Européenne de Football Association" or even "Union of European Football Associations" for that matter. Woodym555 16:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So that why you make a note: Union of European Football Associations (commonly referred to as UEFA), just like in other articles. Now we know what it stands for throughout the article when it stated UEFA. Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess put it in brackets wouldn't do any harm. But what does "No" mean? Buc 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vote only yes or no, whether it be weak or strong. Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the Route to the final should go, though it does fit somewhat into the article. It's history and can be integrated into a separate History of the UEFA Champions League article or whatever you like to name it.
It only has GA status? Why? Can't it make A status first before trying to jump the gun to FA status? Leranedo 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no formal A-Class review process for the WP:FOOTY project. As such "A" is entirely subjective and is up to an individual reviewer. Even so, one could take an article from B straight to FA if you wanted. It has no bearing on this FAC. Woodym555 16:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any rating is subjective, including mines. And yes you could, but I believe it should be a factor. Changed to yes as I have no major concerns regarding this article besides the UEFA issue mentioned above.
Keep in mind that any article on wikipedia is first and foremost for the reader. Just because you or I are familiar with the subject matter doesn't mean the readers are. Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.