This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked n this list over the past few days and feel it is close to becoming a featured list, hopefully any kinks can be ironed out here before it goes to FLC. Thanks n advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments Sillyfolkboy:
- In the second table i would change the two final columns to simply "winners" and "runners up". "Years lost" is certainly wrong because every participating team could be deemed as losers. I think there's no need to mention year as it's obvious by the context what the numbers are.
- Are the C.F. on Real Madrid and FC before Bayern Munich entirely necessary? Not sure about the guidelines but I think they'd be just as clear without as long as the link is fine (as Liverpool now is).
- Really it should be noted when it changed from the "European Cup" to the "Champions League" and reasons why the change happened if necessary.
- On the cities in the table some cities/countries appear more than once and are linked multiple times, is the necessary?
- Maybe a mention of how the city/stadium for the final is chosen would complement the listings in the table.
- Newspapers (guardian/telegraph/times) should be in italics in the references. (Rememeber websites like BBC Sport and UEFA do not need italics)
- Reference 3 is incomplete: it should read: Hylands, Alan. Top 5 UEFA's Badge of Honour winners. about.com Retrieved on 2008-06-23. When an author is identified it should be included and the "root" website should be stated as the publisher. Otherwise references look reliable and in good order. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick comment - is about.com a reliable source for football articles? I did not think it was generally a WP:RS Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
- Tabulated information regarding European Cup and Champions League finals is sitting quite happily in UEFA Champions League. I don't see the need to break out into a separate list article. If you think the table in UEFA Champions League is too big, you should remove it or simplify it down, and let people follow the Main article link here. Otherwise, why not just improve the table in UEFA Champions League, instead of duplicating? --Jameboy (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This was already separate anyway, it was just under finals instead of champions, personally I think that table should be removed from UEFA Champions League, as this allows a more specific approach to the champions just like List of Masters Tournament champions, where the table for the champions is also in the parent article. NapHit (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]