Talk:1985 European Cup final/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the article shortly. I'll add points below as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image: All images are suitably tagged and appropriate to the article.

References: All the citations used are suitable and are all from reliable sources.

Lead: I was going to ask for Post-Match to be covered in the lead in more detail, but after re-reading the lead a couple more times, I think its fine as it is at the moment. After all, the disaster is covered in further detail in a different article and that's where the more appropriate to cover those sorts of issues in greater detail.

Route to Final: The link to Juventus' first round opponents is going to the wrong article. It should be going to FC Ilves which were the team that played Juventus - they merged with another team to become Tampere United some 13 years after the match in question.

"In the second round, Juventus were drawn against Swiss team Grasshopper. They won the first leg 2–0 in Italy" - "They" needs to be changed to Juventus, as on first reading I thought Grasshopper had won the first leg. The use of Juventus later in the sentence can be changed to "they" as it'll be clear then what club its referring to.

The first two sentences of the Liverpool section would be more appropriately located in the background section, especially as one of those sentences is essentially duplicated there.

Disaster: The cite needed tag needs to be fixed.

Otherwise I think the recent edits have really fixed up the article. Once those points above are addressed, this will meet all the Good Article requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, i've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I did a minor copyedit where some text had been moved around, and otherwise I think that this article meets the criteria and is therefore promoted to a Good Article. Miyagawa (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]