Talk:1966 European Cup Winners' Cup final/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 15:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "All but one of Liverpool's ties was won by more than two goals." – Should that be "Only one of Liverpool's.."? From the results it appears to be that way around?
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to remove some of the repitition of "match" in the second paragraph: try using "game" a couple of times instead maybe?
 * reworded NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph could do with more flow: at the moment it reads like a string of bullet points, try to link a couple of the shorter sentences and provide more continuity.
 * had a go at this, hopefully it reads better now. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The last sentence; "Dortmund became the first German team to win the Cup Winners' Cup and the first German team to win a European trophy." doesn't read very well, the repition seems redundant, perhaps try combining the previous sentence into something like: "Reinhard Libuda scored in extra-time, and with no further goals, Dortmund won the match 2–1 to win the Cup Winners' Cup and become the first German team to win a European trophy." Or something like that?
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Route to the final
 * A little like my comment above, this section reads very much like a string of bullet points: in fact, the prose adds very very little that isn't included in the tables on the right, it appears to be a list of scorelines, with no real insight into any of the matches. Although they are only providing background for this article, given that the table has the results, I'd expect the prose to be offering significantly more than it does.
 * The problem is that I have info on these matches for Liverpool through my books on their history, but I don't have any written accounts of Dortmund's matches, so if I added the Liverpool info it would not be neutral. Its a tricky situation, I'll see if I can spice up the section a bit. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand: plenty of experience of working on articles with limited sources myself! Just try to find as much as possible; my concern is that at the moment, there is little point in having the prose, as it doesn't add much to the tables!  Harrias  talk 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to add as much as I can, the fact is I could a lot more for the Liverpool section, but with scarcely any info on Dortmund's matches available it would not be balanced, so this is probably the best I can manage. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Match (Summary)
 * "This was only Liverpool's second season in European competition, .." – The use of this seems a little casual, and the "only" seems unnecesary: "It was Liverpool's season season in.." would probably suffice.
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "the previous season they were eliminated.." – replace "were" with "had been".
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "in the 1956–57 European Cup, where they were.." – I think "when" would be more appropriate than "where" in this case.
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The first half was dull." – Given that this is very much a subjective opinion of the match, it needs a specific reference, and really it should say whose opinion it is in the prose as well: I might watch a match and think it dull, but my brother might watch it and think it is a tactically masterpiece!
 * reworded should read better now. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal, but the Laws of the Game don't hyphenate goal line, so I'd rather see it in that form.
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Link own goal.
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "They were only denied by a number of saves from Liverpool goalkeeper Tommy Lawrence. So the score at half-time was 0–0." Perhaps merge these together: "They were only denied by a number of saves from Liverpool goalkeeper Tommy Lawrence, ensuring it remained 0–0 at half-time."
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph starts "Liverpool had the majority of the possession with Dortmund content to counter-attack." – You need to expand this to explain if it is referring to the first half, second half, or whole match.
 * "The tactic worked as Dortmund took lead in the 61st minute when Sigfried Held scored. Seven minutes later Liverpool were level. Peter Thompson ran down the left hand side of the pitch and passed to Roger Hunt who scored to level the match at 1–1." – The first goal could definitely do with greater description, and ideally the second too: were the goals scored with the foot, the head, inside the box, outside the box? All of this information should be included. The third goal is very well described.
 * described them in more detail I hope, second one doesn't have much info on how he scored it, but added a bit more that I missed. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "There were not many more chances for.." – "not many more" sounds odd to me; would "few" work in its place?
 * done NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any information on the rest of extra time; the goal can't have been the only thing to happen: some more details would be nice.


 * Match (Details)
 * What reference covers the teams and the minutes of the goal?
 * The report link under the scoreline has all that info if you want I can add references to the teams bit? NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that looks fine now you've pointed that out.  Harrias  talk 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * References
 * You seem to rely heavily on Ponting's source: while this isn't a big problem at GA, I wonder if there might be some additional sources available that would add valuable information to this article?
 * I've tried to get a few other from different sources, but the Ponting is the best as it solely deals with Liverpool's history in Europe, so it goes into more detail than the other books I have. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes "http://www.rsssf.com" a reliable source?
 * its a very reliable source its used by the Denmark football federation as their official statisticians if you asked over at WP:FOOTY they would confirm its reliability, its been used on recent Featured articles and lists, so it is reliable. NapHit (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I just hadn't come across it before.  Harrias  talk 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * General
 * I don't know whether they would be any worth in including a section at the end mentioning the clubs later successes or lack thereof in European competition: that Liverpool won the 1973 UEFA Cup, and reached plenty of finals in the 70s and 80s, and that conversely Dortmund didn't reach another final until 1993? It would seem relevant information to give the reader a view of this match in the context of the clubs' histories.
 * Not sure its relevant to the article as it is supposed to be about the match, would it be within the scope of the article I'm not sure. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On the whole I'm leaning towards an oppose on the quality of the prose and the level of detail for the match itself at the moment. But I'm happy to put the article on hold and work with you as much as we can to try and improve the article to GA standard. I'll watch this page, but feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions or comments too.  Harrias  talk 16:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I've had a go at improving the article and I think there is more detail than there was before, and that it reads better. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I completely missed that you'd responded here, and on my talk page! The article is looking in pretty good shape now; I assume you've done most of what you can, I still have a couple of concerns, primarily relating to the match itself. I still wonder about the sentence "Liverpool had the majority of the possession with Dortmund content to counter-attack." as detailed above, is it referring to either half specifically, or the whole match? Also, did you manage to find anything more about extra time?  Harrias  talk 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've specified that comment now it was before Dortmund scored their first goal. I was unable to find any more about extra-time unfortunately, the books I've got only mentioned the Dortmund goal and nothing else, if I find something in the future I will add it, but at the moment I can't any more to what is already there. NapHit (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work: a nice article, which I'm now happy to pass as a Good article.  Harrias  talk 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)