- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.
- Notified User:NapHit, User:PeeJay2K3, User:The Rambling Man, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football
Breaches WP:FACR (4): "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
A large chunk of the prose (Route to the final) is a summary of the finalists' earlier matches in the competition. This is longer than the description of the match itself (Match summary). I raised this on the Talk: page the day it was on the front page (Featured article??); nothing has happened since. jnestorius(talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think this nomination is in good faith but is actually quite frivolous. The nominator disagrees with the format of the article though this was discussed in the FAC which was only 4/5 months ago. The article is almost identical to the article that passed FAC: now, then diff. (The diff shows that only paragraphs have been split and no text has been added/taken away).
- As was said on the Talk page, the fact that the FAC succeeeded with pretty much the current article shows the flaws of the FAC process. This concern was raised (by others) during FAC; nothing was done; it passed nonetheless. What happened to Wikipedia:Consensus? You shouldn't be able to ignore the objections of a minority; if you're not not going to the address them, you should at least say why you think there is no need to do so. Woody concedes the section might "seem a bit big"; if you can explain how this seeming is in fact an illusion, I'll be happy to concede. jnestorius(talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Consensus at the FAC was that the article was fine as it was. One person disagreed. Have you tried raising these issues recently on the talk page? The day it is on the main page is not the best day to ask it given all the unwarranted attention it gets from those pesky vandals. Any improvements would be lost in a myriad of edit conflicts.
- It is not a question of conceding, it makes it sound like a battle or war of attrition which is not what we want. I agree that there is some redundancy that could be trimmed. I just think that the talkpage would be a better place for this. If there was dissention or a flat lack of support on the talkpage then it should have been brought here. Woody (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think it is appropriate to discuss the finalists route to the final as this impacts on the final significantly. I agree that it might seem a bit big in relative terms though. It is entirely comprehensive regarding the final and it lists all that you would want to know about the final. I see nothing that could be added and as such for me, it meets the featured article criteria. Woody (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The solution is not to add stuff but to take stuff away: trim all the padding out of the "Route to the Final" section. simply give the group tables, and leave the exiting knockout results. There could in principle be relevant bits from earlier matches: suspensions, injuries, or cup-tied players, affecting team selection; if the teams had met in the group stages; if a player had done something notable in an early match and emulated his achievement / made up for his blunder in the final; etc. But ordinary match details are irrelevant: what does it matter if "Crouch headed in Bellamy's corner on 58 minutes" in Bordeaux months before? jnestorius(talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I agree that irrelavent details should be trimmed, list them on the talkpage... Woody (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yeah I was suprised when this passed. I only gave weak support because of this. There is clearly an outstanding opp vote that you can clearly see on the nomination page. I alway thought that all outstanding opp vote had to be addressed in someway before Raul passed them, maybe he made a (gasp!) mistake. Buc (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No, opposes considered unactionable by the FA director(s) do not have to be acted upon. Also, if consensus of editors is that an oppose would be detrimental to the article then again, doesn't have to be acted on. It is all a matter of common sense. In this case, it is obviously quite contentious, but still should have been passed given the comments on that nomination page. Woody (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I understand that but looking at the nom page it Opp just seemed to be overlooked. Buc (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It was also passed during the <cough> Larenedo phase. I don't see anything that can't be fixed up quickly without need for a FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well seeing as the user who brought up the removal debate is taking a wikibreak, I would like to get consensus on how we approach this issue, I think what jnestorious proposed about trimming the route to the final section to include the tables and a bit of ino about how they got to the final. Anyone else got any views? NapHit (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is focus (4). Marskell (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'm not entirely sure this needs to be in FARC but I'm moving it to get further comments. I don't have a problem with the structure, personally. Marskell (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Here is what we came up with on the talk page of the article, instead of the current route to the final section:
"
Teams qualified for the Champions League group stage, either directly or through three preliminary rounds, based on both their position in the preceding domestic league and the strength of that league (see UEFA league coefficient). Both Liverpool and Milan entered the competition in the third and final preliminary round: Liverpool by finishing third in the FA Premier League 2005–06, Milan by finishing third in Serie A 2005–06. Milan had originally finished second in Serie A, but were deducted 30 points for their part in a match-fixing scandal. The original punishment, reduced on appeal, would have barred them from the Champions League altogether. The group stages were contested as eight double round robin groups of four teams, the top two qualifying for the knockout stages. Knockout ties were decided based on home and away matches, with the away goals rule, extra time and penalty shootouts as tiebreakers if needed."
We would then have a paragraph mentioning the knockout stages, which should clear up the problems people had with the article, anyone got any other views about this? NapHit (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provisional Keep - Overall a great article, but please get someone to give it a quick run-through. I found some minor issues, including several instances of linking the same page twice in a section. For example, Alberto Gilardino is linked twice in Route to the final: A.C. Milan. There are also some punctuation errors, such as this from the Liverpool section, "This was the second time in three years the two sides had met at the semi final stage" - dash needed. I also noticed a pair of one-sentence paragraphs in Match summary. I do think, though, that it should still be an FA, provided some cleanup is performed. Giants2008 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Here is a more specific list of small problems that need to be ironed out.
- Route to the final, A.C. Milan: In the second leg against Red Star Belgrade, perhaps say that both goals mentioned were scored by Milan.
- Liverpool F.C.: Liverpool won the match late in the game, as Mark Gonzalez" Don't like this at all. How about "Liverpool won the match with a goal in the 87th minute, as Mark Gonzalez...".
- I looked at the ref for the game above, and it says that Liverpool scored in the 32nd minute. The article, however, states that Liverpool equalized four minutes after Maccabi's goal. Is this a convention in the sport, or an error?
- Another look at the reference shows that it is supposed to be this way, and I left it unchanged. My mistake. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "5 times champions" change to "five-time champions".
- Craig Bellamy linked twice in section.
- Maybe mention Liverpool and Chelsea's two meetings in 2005–06. It will help show that the sides were familiar rivals.
- Problems before the match: UEFA linked twice.
- Commas before "who got" and "who received".
- Redundancy fix: "for their lack of provision for the clubs' disabled fans".
- Match ball: Change is to was twice.
- Match summary: Leading goal-scorers is first one-paragraph sentence. Also could use a citation.
- Move ref 44 down to cover Milan's luck in their white strip.
- The odds part is the other one-paragraph sentence; also seems trivial to me.
- I didn't want to make a possibly controversial change in the middle of more routine copy-editing, so I let this stay. I'm still not crazy about it, though. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- First half: Marek Jankulovski linked twice.
- "however the referee did not judge this to be handball" Should "a" come before handball?
- Second half: Change first sentence to "the majority of possession."
- Add comma before "but Milan held on".
- Post-match: Dash for then teenager. Giants2008 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've taken care of most of these myself, and left notes above for the others. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.