Talk:2007 UEFA Champions League final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk • contribs • count ) 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * General
 * Images are good
 * References 12 through 17 all need to be replaced - they all point to this year's competition, not the 2007 event.
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Remaining references seem alright. Spot check revealed no issue with close paraphrasing.
 * Three disambig links that need re-targeting.
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV, stable, no edit wars.


 * Lead
 * Where I am from, this team is always referred to as being A. C. Milan to differentiate it from Inter Milan. For the sake of people like me, I would specify the team is A. C. Milan on both the first use in the lead and in the infobox.  After that, it is established which Milan team is referenced.
 * I am willing to make this change, but it is customary on Wikipedia to refer to Associazione Calcio Milan as "Milan" and Football Club Internazionale Milano as "Internazionale". There is a similar tendency to refer to Milan as "AC Milan" and Internazionale as "Inter Milan" in the UK, but since this is viewed as incorrect by Italians, we try to avoid it wherever possible. Furthermore, no one ever refers to Inter as simply "Milan", so it should be pretty plain that any references to "Milan" refer to Associazione Calcio Milan. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is the standard, I won't question it, but bear in mind that the article does need to cater to a world wide audience. Resolute 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Milan's victories from close affairs to comfortable victories." - Missing word. Their victories varied?
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "They defeated Celtic by a single goal over two legs, while they beat Manchester United 5–3 on aggregate." - I am impressed they beat Celtic at the same time they defeated Man U. ;).  Perhaps "They defeated Celtic by a single goal over two legs, then beat Manchester United 5-3 on aggregate."?
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Route to the final
 * "A 1–0 victory and 2–1 victory in the away leg ensured Milan would enter the group stage of the Champions League." - Try to avoid duplicating words so closely. Perhaps something like: "Two victories, 1–0 at home and 2–1 in the away leg, ensured Milan...", or something similar.
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Milan won three matches drawing one and losing two to finish top of the group with ten points and progress to the knockout round." - not a fan of the mixed tense here. "Milan won three matches, drew one and lost two, finishing top of the group..."?  Keep in mind that I'm Canadian, so if the current wording is consistent with British English standards, disregard my comment.
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Liverpool gained entry to the competition after finishing third in the 2005–06 FA Premier League. As a result of finishing third..." - no need to state a second time that Liverpool finished third. Simplify to "As a result..."
 * I've put "As a result of their league position..." – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The second leg at Anfield was won 1–0 by Barcelona, however Liverpool progressed to the quarter-finals courtesy of the away goals rule." - fortunately, I know what the rule is, but for the education of a reader who might not, I'd just state that Liverpool advanced because of a greater number of away goals scored.
 * I personally think this is unnecessary, the link is provided in the lead, so if the reader wants to know what it is they can click on the link. I'm not sure its right to include a description when there is a page to do that. NapHit (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would also link to that article in the body. That said, I'm not sure ".. by virtue of scoring more away goals" is worse than "...by virtue of the away goals rule".  I won't hold up a GA pass on this point though.  Use your best judgment. Resolute 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First half
 * "Liverpool playing in a 4-2-3-1 formation had the first attack of the match" - shouldn't there be commas there? "Liverpool, playing in a 4-2-3-1 formatiom, had the first attack..."?
 * I don't like splitting up sentences unnecessarily, so I've put "Playing in a 4-2-3-1 formation, Liverpool had the first attack..." – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Milan responded with Jamie Carragher clearing two low balls which heading towards the Liverpool goal." - Missing word there?
 * Completely reworded. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Second half
 * "While Milan were unable to keep possession of the ball." - Incomplete sentence
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Post-match
 * "The match was overshadowed by the death of Sevilla player Antonio Puerta, which raised the possibility that the match might not go ahead. It did however, Milan won the match 3–1 to secure their fifth Super Cup victory." - Too many uses of "match" in such a small space. Reword slightly?
 * Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Only needs a few reference fixes and a small tightening of prose in a couple places. I am placing it on hold for now, and anticipate little issue with this being passed soon. Regards, Resolute 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall

Ok I think everything's has been addressed by a combination of myself and PeeJay, thank you for the review.
 * Indeed. Everything looks good, so I am listing it.  Congrats! Resolute 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)