Talk:2014 Coppa Italia final

2014 Coppa Italia final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 1, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 2014 Coppa Italia final appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 May 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that both teams in the 2014 Coppa Italia Final lost the first leg of their semi-finals?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/May.

Wikipedia

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Italy Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Italian football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Coppa Italia Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ~~FairyTailRocks (talk · contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hey! I will review this. Seems it will take in the next two days or more, depending on my real-life schedule. Thanks! Fairy Tail Rocks 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at the FOOTY project page. I can review it if Rocks is unavailable.Cptnono (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferable, due to more important commitments this has been on the burner for three weeks. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a little short and doesn't work as a standalone summary. Adding information on who scored would be useful. A line about the second yellow or important substitutions is another possibility. At least another line to fill out the one line paragraph about pre-match violence would help.
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two instances of "9" being used in the background section. It should be "...Napoli's ninth..." and "...nine point...".
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors frown upon single line paragraphs like the one about meeting the Pope. Can another line be added? Is something like meeting the Pope common? Did he voice a preference?
- I've expanded it a little. As a Brit, I'm not very familiar with the ceremonies around these cup finals in Italy, it may be something for me to look into. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be useful to note that Chievo was in the same league as Fiorentina in the Road to the final section.
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning behind Cuadrado's suspension under Team selection might be of interest.
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should the subsection "Pre-match violence" be its own section before "Match? It is separate from the match and significant. I'm not sure so completely up to you.
"wider clashes with projectiles by the two sets of fans" I can't put my finger o it but something seems off about the line. Also, can anything be added about those clashes?
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also adjust the lines: "...who was in a critical state after being shot in the chest for almost two months before dying in hospital on 25 June."
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention that Hamšík plays for Napoli so that an unfamiliar reader does not have to use the wikilink?
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider revising "...to match his Serie A tally of the whole season." in the Summary section. I get what is coming across but it reads a little jumbled.
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Post-match, "Napoli supporters invaded the pitch to celebrate following their team's victory, but were brought under control in order to allow the trophy ceremony to take place." is another single sentence paragraph. The line is bulky and could probably be broken into two.
- Done '''tAD''' (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard contradicting thoughts on this so will leave it up to you, should publishers of online content that aren't considered newspapers and magazines (such as UEFA in the 2nd ref) be in italics? You have everything in italics except for #3, RSSSF.
- I've had a little look at this. Certainly, UEFA is a company, so I have removed the italics, as is ESPN, but I'm pretty sure that BBC Sport and Sky Sports News count as "works" of BBC and Sky respectively. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(computer is about to crash, TBC)

The blue links need a quick run through. My understanding is that links in the body should be used in the first instance after the lead (only instances in the prose mentioned below):
- Joaquín is linked twice
- Higuaín is linked multiple times
- Insigne is linked twice
- Callejon is linked twice
Consider wikilinking:
- Positions
- Injury time
- Offside
- Booking
  - Done '''tAD''' (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick checks show that the image, dab links, and dead links are good. It would be great if there were more images available (I haven't looked) but the infobox and match summary are well done.

Overall, this article only needs a little expansion and some minor cleanup to meet GA. Who knows how far it can go after that? Cptnono (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: tAD is working on an FAC as well right now so I will keep this open for longer than usual to ensure that both get the proper amount of TLC.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill:

More than happy to pass as a GA. Good stuff.Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]