Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2015.

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots

 * Nominator(s):  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a riot involving football hooliganism in Copenhagen around the 2000 UEFA Cup Final between fans of Arsenal F.C. and Galatasaray S.K.. I believe it should be featured because I believe it fulfills all the criteria, goes into detail about it, is sourced well and is balanced.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on a thorough read. I have concerns about the sourcing, the adherence to NPOV and the quality of the writing. --John (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give me some details?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I will post a fuller review here later today. --John (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-exhaustive list of problems:
 * Sourcing: Don't use tabloids. I see Daily Record, Daily Mirror X3 and Daily Mail. None of these can be used in an article like this which concerns living people.
 * NPOV: "...it was reported that members of Arsenal's hooligan firms The Herd and The Gooners,[9]" (another bad source there as well), "In Turkey, the media portrayed Galatasaray fans as acting in self-defence, with criticism directed at the British fans for allegedly attacking members of the press.[12] However, there were conflicting reports, with claims that some Galatasaray fans were instigating some of the violence.[39] Later on, British media blame also transferred towards Galatasaray fans.[40]" All over the place. The Aftermath section is the worst and really needs a complete rewrite. Quotes should be summarised.
 * Prose: "Leeds fans had been drinking in bars reportedly taunting local people and Turkish police intervened to stop fights breaking out." What is wrong with that sentence? There are probably twenty sentences like that in the article. It will need a major rewrite to meet FA standard. Don't be disheartened; get better sources, deal with the NPOV and then polish the prose. There's no point in doing it any other way. I also endorse Brianboulton's comments below. --John (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Daily Mirror I can understand as a tabloid but The Mail and the Daily Record are tabloids?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: On sources, you might start by looking at Ref 9, where the source page has disappeared – and I would question anyway this source's credentials as a high-quality reliable source. Ref 38 looks equally dubious on reliablity grounds. The prose reads rather raggedly throughout – just a few examples:
 * "Arsenal made it to the final" is tabloid journalese rather than encyclopaedic
 * The relative pronoun "which" should not occur twice in a single sentence ("Galatasaray fans entered the area shortly afterwards which precipitated a fight between the two sets of supporters, which led to the two Leeds fans being stabbed")
 * The sentence "The stabbings caused anger throughout the United Kingdom, and subsequently it was reported that members of Arsenal's hooligan firms The Herd and The Gooners, wanted to avenge their deaths, and telephoned other British hooligan firms, inviting them to join them in Copenhagen to attack Galatasaray fans" is clunky, vague ("it was reported") and ungrammatical ("their deaths" appears to refer to the hooligan firms)
 * Use of numerics for small numbers, even to start sentences.

These are, I stress, are examples; the whole text needs to be polished up to meet FA standards. It seems you have made some effort to improve the prose since the last significant peer review in July 2013, but it really needs the input of a fresh pair of knowledgeable eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- We aren't really making progress towards consensus to promote here and I think it'd be best if the improvements suggested above are undertaken away from the pressures of the FAC process, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.