Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it is banging on the door of WP:FA with great force, but I believed that it would be prudent to subject it to a peer review first. I believe that what the article needs most is a language check, but if anyone believes that there is some missing content or that some of the existing content need not be there, please comment.

Thanks, – PeeJay 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to respond been busy recently, anyway here's my thoughts

• Think the lead could do with being a bit bigger, just bulk up the paragraphs there a bit on short side, also no need for references in lead if they are referenced later on.
  • Can do! Shouldn't take too long.
• Man of the match doesn't need to be linked twice in the infobox
  • That's part of the coding of the infobox, so nothing to do with this article.
• Images need alt text - Wikipedia:ALT should explain what is needed
  • Can do.
• "the first time that the final has been contested by domestic champions" change has to had
  • Done.
• "Both Manchester United and Barcelona were also looking to another Champions League title" this doesn't read right I would put add before another
  • Reads fine to me. I'll wait for another opinion on this before making the change.
• "Manchester United had already won four out of a possible seven trophies in 2008–09" I would wikilink the manchester united season article here
  • Done.
• I would change the table at the bottom of the road to Rome section, to the one used in the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final article
  • I'd also like another opinion on this before making the change.
• "More than 3,000 Manchester United fans congregated just outside the city in a field that has come to be known as "Fergie's Field"." I know you have two references at the end of the paragraph, but I think this needs a citation.
  • Done.
• One immediate problem with the match section, is that there are hardly any references, this will need to be addressed if you want it to pass FAC. For instance the trophy presentation section has no references at all, and could be construed as original research
  • Can be done, but it would just be repeated references to the same source, I'm afraid. Also, for the trophy presentation, I will need access to a copy of the match DVD (which is available on Amazon, but still fairly expensive).
• Put the uefa full time reference under the score, a shown on this article
  • Not sure why that's necessary. I would have thought that a link to the official UEFA match report would suffice.
• You need separate references for the statistics as well again look at the 2006 article to see what I mean
  • Done.

I'll review the rest tomorrow pretty tired right now, hope this helped so far, NapHit (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll make some more changes tomorrow. – PeeJay 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

• Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that match articles I've written have tended to be about events in the dim and distant past, but in places the article seems to me to be blow-by-blow to the point of excess, such as the Match Summary section. Does the ball really merit a whole section to itself? The referee?
  • According to Featured Article criterion 1b, a featured article should be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". I would say that the match referee and his history with the competition and the two clubs is a major fact and in context, and the UEFA Champions League Final match ball has become one of UEFA's most recognisable symbols, and it stands to reason that people would come to the article about a specific final to find information about the ball used in that final. To be fair, at least I haven't listed the boots that each player wore in the match :-P
    • There's comprehensiveness and there's undue weight. The section about the ball could be paraphrased as "A ball, like other balls from the same manufacturer, but with a logo on it." Most of the rest is marketingese. I find it very hard to believe that the brand of ball has become one of UEFA's most recognisable symbols. Outside UEFA and Adidas-led press events, few will care. I certainly wouldn't expect to find any serious news stories about it, its a ball, not a masterpiece by Christopher Wren. The bit about the referee is not too much of an issue. My thought process was that even in a match programme — a publication of maybe 80 pages written specifically for a match – the background of referee is covered by a sentence or so next to the team line-ups. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I must say that I've tried to be as careful as I can with the marketing-style language. I was trying to focus more on the technology used to manufacture the ball, as the evolution of footballs is not an insignificant subject. Also, the impression I've got is that there is a significant number of people the world over who look forward to the release of new balls, boots and other equipment, so I figured that since the information is available, why not incorporate it into the article? If it didn't go in here, where it seemed to logically fit, then either someone would have just made a ramshackle edit to Adidas Finale or the info would have been lost to history. I agree that, possibly, the language could be toned down slightly, but I don't think the section should be removed. As for the referee, there's only one paragraph of four sentences about the actual referee, all of which seems relevant to the match. I thought that since all of the info about the officials came from the same reference, it would be OK. – PeeJay 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• "As with every UEFA Champions League final since 1999, the 2009 final was given its own unique visual identity, designed to give a distinctive flavour of the host city..." - segments of this paragraph lean too far into the language of press releases and publicity brochures.
  • You could be right there. I've tried to tone the language down a bit, so it should hopefully feel a bit less press release-y.
• The image of the sign might be considered a derivative work and thus not a free image. The ticket should be OK, as it is a utilitarian object.
  • I've raised the issue about the sign at WP:IMAGEHELP, so we should have a response fairly soon.
    • OK, the image has been listed for a deletion discussion at Commons, but it's had no replies so far, and will likely be deleted without discussion. Fortunately, if that happens, I can just ask User:Andrea 93 to upload it here. – PeeJay 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Considering every major news source in Europe will have reported on the match, the match summary section has very few references. Some parts have an OR feel to them e.g. "Barcelona kicked the match off, but Manchester United showed their intent from the outset, forcing goalkeeper Víctor Valdés to concede a throw-in after just 10 seconds." That a team lacking possession tries to gain it is a given. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned to NapHit, referencing the match summary section will involve mass repetition of references, and it will take some time, but I believe I can get it done. – PeeJay 21:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• First sentence kind of reads like "The A was the B on C which was C on the B of A...." - perhaps engage us quicker? "Champions League" appears four times in that one sentence. Tell us what it was rather than repeat the details.
• Don't think capacity is required in intro, and as you say "for the fourth time" it may imply that the capacity was the same each time (which I doubt).
• I'd reverse your use of "holders" and "defending champions" to make it clear what position Man Utd had coming into the game.
• "...and who unsuccessfully ..." you've let the cat out of the bag here haven't you? Before you mention the result you already tell us that Utd didn't win...
• "early" vs "10th minute" in lead is probably too much. Just stick to the facts. Early could be 30secs.
• "Barcelona played against " - maybe "went on to..." as this article is a freeze-frame in time talking about the Champions League final.
• " However, despite" - Pick one. Both is overkill.
• "Man of the Match" is overlinked in the infobox.
• I'm nowhere near finishing but there should be a clear reason why (a) you state the capacity in the lead (around 72k) but the attendance of the biggest ever club final in football history had only 62k people (per the infobox). If you have this reasoning later then feel free to ignore.
• Any chance of linking the Euro symbol for those non-Europeans who probably have no idea what this means?
  • I've completely re-shuffled the lead section, so I believe that all of the above ten comments have been dealt with. However, I do believe that the wording may now feel a bit clunky, so another look-over would be helpful. – PeeJay 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Of those nine matches, Manchester United have recorded three wins to Barcelona's two..." tense issue - surely "had recorded..."?
• " The most recent meeting between Manchester United and Barcelona ..." - why not just "between them..."?
• Avoid overlinking Camp Nou.
• "Premier League crown" - not a redtop - stick with "title" rather than crown.
• "at which it played host to " a shade anthropomorphic for me. Perhaps just "which hosted"?
• 72,698 or 72,689?
  • Fixed all of the above. Btw, it should have been 72,689, so the capacity I had written in the lead was a typo.

More later if requested. Bedtime for TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More comments are definitely welcome. Thanks for taking the time out to comment as much as you have already. – PeeJay 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More from TRM

• "Barcelona were seeded " then "Barcelona was entered " I care not which you choose, as I understand how we talk about teams in the plural often. Just be consistent.
• "were seeded for the third qualifying round draw,[17] and drawn against ..." should there be a "were" before "drawn" here?
• "Wisła Kraków of Poland" never that keen, sounds like a formal title, perhaps "Polish team Wisla Krakow"? No big deal though.
• "a 1–0 away defeat " it was just a defeat, it was the defeat.
• "into the group stage draw.[19][20] Barcelona's UEFA coefficient placed them in the top eight seeds for the group stage draw" - "group stage draw" repeated quickly makes for dull prose.
• That sentence is huge. I suggest you split "group stage draw, meaning that they would " at the comma. And then start with a "This meant that..."?
• "Four wins, a draw at home to Basel and a home defeat to Shakhtar Donetsk placed Barcelona on top of their group with a game to spare " not sure this follows - you mention six games then say it placed them top with a game to spare. I thought they only played six in total?
• You link Lyon twice, once to the club, once to the city. To avoid confusion, perhaps you could refer to the club with its formal name instead of simply Lyon?
• "and the win was all but guaranteed " I know it was, but this is speculative and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.
• "two goals from Thierry Henry " no need to repeat his first name.
• "reduced Lyon's deficit to two goals" no need to spoon-feed us - the maths is simple enough - I would just say "reduced Lyon's deficit"...
• "place in the quarter-finals.[27] In the quarter-finals, " guess what I'm going to say...!
• "Lionel Messi and Samuel Eto'o " again, no need to repeat full names - there are no other Messi's or Eto'o's to get confused with.
• "but it turned out to be too-little-too-late " again, a little journalistic for my tastes.
• Avoid overlinking Barcelona in the image captions.
• "The quarter-final draw also determined " this sounds like it just happened. Presumably you could easily say "The quarter-final draw had also determined..."?
• "4–4 draw back at" no need for "back".
• "they got off to a bad start" bit POV.
• "their discipline let them down on occasion" journalistic.
• "Despite this, their discipline let them down on occasion, with Chelsea making four unsuccessful penalty appeals during the match, while Daniel Alves received his third yellow card of the knockout stage, ruling him out of Barcelona's next match, and Éric Abidal was given a straight red card for a foul on Nicolas Anelka as the French forward was through on goal, although replays appeared to show that Anelka tripped over his own feet" the award for the longest sentence in Wikipedia goes to....

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More more from TRM

• Avoid overlinking Man Utd in the captions.
• "defending champions of the UEFA Champions League, Manchester United began their title defence " defence in their twice. Perhaps, as reigning champions?
• "with two familiar opponents" not sure this is necessary - I would suggest that Utd would be familiar with most, if not all, of their opponents.
• "a new face" journalistic and anthropomorphic...
• "of the competition, and a Celtic victory over Villarreal ..." perhaps "of the competition. Following Celtic's victory over Villarreal, United went ..."?
• Group E is mentioned in the caption but not in the article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More more more from TRM

• "settled United hearts " very journalistic indeed!
• "Inter never looked like scoring" your POV, especially after saying they'd hit the bar, that does, to me, sound like they were close to scoring.
• "and, with that, booked their passage " strictly, no. The final whistle and the first goal would have done that. Again, it boils down to treading a fine line between dull NPOV prose and floral, journalistic speak. I think this needs a bit of work.
• "whom they played " "against whom they had played"?
• "The draw also determined the semi-final pairings, with United drawn against Arsenal or Villarreal." this makes the prose a bit wonky as this draw would only be relevant should United win, and both before and after this sentence you talk about the QF.
• "Unfortunately for United, that away goal came in the first four minutes of the game" you're saying this on United's behalf, and it's a bit POV. Plus, the away goal came after four minutes, not "in the first four minutes"...
• "equalised just 10 minutes " no need for "just".
• "an all-important " I think, once more, this is POV.
• "They showed their intent ..." Ronaldo scored a cracker, but I'm not keen on this being a "show of intent" from United.
• "in only the sixth minute" remove only.
• "and they started the match in perfect style" your opinion.
• Instead of linking London, wouldn't it be better to have the Emirates Stadium there instead?
• "Arsenal remained hopeful of overturning their one-goal deficit, but those hopes were dashed" too journalistic. How do you know they "remained hopeful"? and "dashing hopes" isn't encyclopedic either.
• The knockout stage table - could you not put a colspan'ed row in for each round?
• No need to link London in my opinion in the Venue section.
• However, you could consider linking Roman in "typically Roman images" to Ancient Rome or similar, as you're using Roman in quite specific terms here.
• Why the capacity reduction?
• "as a hotbed for knife-related crime" if you describe it in these terms, I think you should find a quotation and attribute it!
• You could link adidas.
• "the FIFA list " could use explanation or a link.
• "compatriots " not required since you've just said they all come from the same country.
• "five previous occasions, losing just one of them " you don't lose "occasions" you lose matches.
• "1991 Cup Winners' Cup final. " capital F here I think.
• "Immediately prior to the match itself, there came the opening ceremony for the final. " remove ", there".
• Last sentence of Opening ceremony is unreferenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MMMM from TRM

• "Barça's" stick with Barcelona. Same when you suddenly say "FC Barcelona "...
• "While replays suggested " I thought the previous section said "despite replays showing that Fletcher had won the ball " which was without dispute...
• ", including Fletcher's" this redundant - it's clear from the previous portion of the sentence that Fletcher was included in Guariola's request.
• "Barcelona anchor " not clear what you mean by this!
• "seemed to rock Manchester United" speculative, your opinion.
• "pre-rehearsed " is this before rehearsal? Do you just mean "rehearsed"?
• "an uncharacteristically poor pass from Michael Carrick, while Anderson found himself kicking at fresh air. " journalism again, particularly the Anderson thing, non-experts will have no idea what this means, or why Anderson should do such a strange thing.
• "lost the ball in a 50-50 challenge " is the % of the challenged really important?
• Avoid repeating the first names again throughout the final description. We definitely know that Eto'o's name is Samuel, and there's no chance that we could confuse Ronaldo - there were no other Ronaldo's playing were there?
• "a cheeky back-heel " journalistic.
• First sentence of the trophy presentation section is a bit like "statin' the bleedin' obvious" to me...

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Last lot from TRM

• "his erstwhile team-mates" - erstwhile? And I presume you mean he hung around with his own team rather than go see the Utd crew?
• "Prince William of Wales" is a little over formal (I know, after all the moaning I've done about journalistic lingo!) - the universe knows him as Prince William.
• Presentation section is entirely unreferenced, which isn't so bad apart from things like when Fergie handed the special plaque straight to Giggsy.
• You have uefa.com in the reaction section and uefa.com in the references. I know it'll be a template issue in the refs but it seems a little odd.
• "Barcelona's victory hinged on the performances of Andrés Iniesta (left) and Xavi (right)." - prove it.
• "Messi, Xavi and Xavi's midfield partner Andrés Iniesta" maybe "Messi and the midfield partnership of Xavi and Iniesta"?
• "lack of effectiveness " - ineffectiveness?
• the Treble should be explained or linked more directly to European treble.
• " and ended up joining" - "and joined"
• "with the rationalisation" - "with the rationale"
• "highest ratings that evening" - needs context - highest what? for that timeslot? channel?
• " an extra 1.79 " I'd prefer "additional" over extra.
• Avoid UK - use United Kingdom, or if you really wish to abbreviate, place (UK) after the first United Kingdom and then just use the abbreviation.
• "Barcelona were eligible to compete in" - I thought, generally, the winner just did compete in, rather than became eligible for participation.

That's ya lot. Phew! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)