Talk:1973 UEFA Cup final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adam4267 (talk · contribs) 22:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My initial impressions are that the article seems to be ok, but not quite finished yet? I think it is on it's way but there certainly needs to be more work done to it. I'm going to place it on hold for now, and I think you will be able to get it up to GA standard over the next week. Adam4267 (talk)

Comments

Writing

• The first two sentences in the lead are really bad. They just don't make sense at all.

The first sentence reads fine to me. I removed an s from competitions which I think was causing the problem with the second sentence. NapHit (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• It still reads really badly to me and is confusing in places. I think it should read something like ... and Borussia Monchengladbach of West Germany. It was the final round of the UEFA Cup, the secondary cup competition in Europe. Neither club had appeared in the final of the competition before. The match was played over two legs, the first was played on 10 May, at Anfield, and the second was played on 23 May, at Bökelbergstadion. Liverpool won the first leg 3-0, Borussia Monchengladbach won the second leg 2-0. I think something along those lines would be better than the current lead, which I still find a bit confusing (Not the first sentence that is fine, the 2nd and 3rd).

I've reworded it slightly, think it reads better now, I was against adding yours because its repeating what is already in the lead in other areas. I think it reads more clearly now. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm happier with the lead, but I still don't like this bit on 10 May 1973 at Anfield, Liverpool and 23 May 1973 at the Bökelbergstadion, Mönchengladbach. Sorry to be picky, but I really feel like this doesn't make sense and is confusing. I think it would be better if you wrote; the first leg was played at Anfield on...

changed should be clearer now. NapHit (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Some basic info missing from the match details and infobox. Country for referees, subs for BM, MoM, assistant referees etc.

added the countries for the refs in the infobox, unfortunately I can't add any of the other stuff, as its not available anywhere, the liverpool substitutes come from the lfc history site and they don't list the borussia subs. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Try leaving a message at the WP:Football talk page, asking German language speakers to look for it and go through the list of editors to see if there are any Borussia fans. If it just can't be found then I would suggest writing unknown under the substitutes to show that they have not been accidentally ommitted. Alternatively, leave out the Liverpool subs who were not used to even it up.

I've messaged an editor involved in German football and we came across this its not the most reliable site but it does have an image of the official team sheet for the second leg which gives the borussia substitutes so I think I will include this. Actually looking at the site it does get most of its info from reliable sources see here so I think I may reference it. NapHit (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the abandoned first match should be put under the first leg header. It's not really background, it's part of the final.

done NapHit (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe consider putting it above the Summary section. While it is part of the first leg, it's not really part of the actual match.

done NapHit (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Link First Division in Liverpool Route to Final section

done NapHit (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• It needs to be specified where all five of the German teams are from.

done NapHit (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should move the bit about Shankly's tactical change to before the Summary section, and remove the last sentence. Only keeping this The inclusion of Toshack had the desired effect then say as he used his height to assist Liverpool's second goal.

I don't agree, although its tactical it is part of the summary of the first leg and it flows nicely into the first goal, so I think it should remain, as it is part of the summary of the match. NapHit (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was a bit confused by it at first but having re-read, it I now realise what it means. Including the time that the goal was scored should clear up any confusion.

• I've done a bit of a ce in the First Leg summary. However, there are a few areas where it doesn't read brilliantly. Stuff like repeating a word too many times in quick succession and also a few other issues;
  Steve Heighway's foul on Henning Jensen was judged to be a foul by Austrian referee Linemayr.
  Toshack won Liverpool a corner and with the German defender focusing on the Liverpool striker,.
  Also too much weight is given to Borussia's penalty over Liverpool's.

gone over this bit looks better. I don't agree there is too much weight given to the penalty, it was important in the context of the final, as had borussia scored they would have won, therefore I think what is currently in the article reflects the importance of the penalty. NapHit (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Toshack won Liverpool a corner and with the German defender focusing on the striker, Lloyd was left unmarked to head in Keegan's corner This still doesn't make sense.

Needed the name of the defender adding should make sense now. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The last few sentences in the second leg summary section are't really relevant to that are and also were repeated in the Background section. Adam4267 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

References

• What makes LFC History a reliable source

The sixth paragraph here should clear up any reliability issues

• The title of the book; You'll Never Walk Alone is wrong, at least according to Amazon. It said that the book was the Official Illustrated History of Liverpool

Ye that's the introductory bit, added it. NapHit (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

• First leg has four medium sized paragraphs, second leg has three small paragraphs. Doesn't seem like correct weighting to me.

This is because the only sources for the second leg are Times and Guardian articles which are behind a pay wall, luckily there was a link to a Daily Mirror article on the LFC History site, so I'm afraid that is the best I can do unless I subscribe to either site, which I'm reluctant to do. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Try and even them up a bit. Even if it is just be shaving a few superfluous words and phrases out of the first leg.
• This is an issue and please try to expand the Second Leg as much as possible, similarly try and make the First Leg shorter where possible. You don't need to subscribe to either site and if it's impossible to do then I can accept that.

To access the times and guardian articles you have to pay, like I said I'm reluctant to do so, especially as access to the guardian archive for 24 hours is in the region of £9, unless I do subscribe then I can't expand it unfortunately. I don't think its NPOV either, as its POV in favour of either leg, its simply down to the fact that sources are thin on the ground. I don't think the description of the first leg because of this, so I'm against shortening that. NapHit (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that there are so few sources, I think you are right. It will be ok hoe it is. I have done some minor cleanups and will now pass the articel.

• Borussia scorers are missing from Route to final.

Again I don't have any info on this, will ask around to see if any users can provide some German sources. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not all of the scorers are mentioned in Liverpool's section and none in Borussia's. Maybe these could just be removed?

I've removed them from all but the semi-final with spurs, due to the game being decided on away goals, this probably the only game that merits goalscorers being includd to clarify for the reader what was happening. NapHit (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Liverpool Route to Final section is over 100 words bigger than the Borussia section, this seems like undue weight.

trimmed it down by removing bits you mentioned below, looks more even now. NapHit (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• These bits can be removed; was an uneventful match with neither side creating many goalscoring opportunities, and who were unbeaten in domestic competition at this point in the season. as well as this Tottenham were unable to score the goal they required and Liverpool progressed to the final on the away goals rule after the aggregate score was 2–2. as it is repeated in the previous sentences.

done NapHit (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

• The only one is of Toshack, not in his playing days and doesn't really contribute anything to the article. It would be better to omit, or even better to find some images of anyone who played or either of the stadiums.

I think the image should stay, this is the only image of Toshack available (I'll look on flickr later to see if there is a better one) and he was an integral part of the first leg. I'm not sure what you mean by "better to find some images of anyone who played" as Toshack did play. Regarding the stadiums, that was my original plan but none of the images available portray the stadiums very well or in the context of the article so I left it. NapHit (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• What I meant was, it would be better to find a picture of someone in their playing days. Rather than as a manger.

I agree, but finding an image such as this that is free use is hard. I've looked on flickr and can't find any, so at the moment its the best I can manage. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand that finding images for older articles can be hard. If that's the best there is then it'll have to do. Although I did look at the Anfield article and maybe one or two of the pics in there could be used, but it's up to you.

Adam4267 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)