Talk:Liverpool F.C. in international football/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I am planning to review this. Note that I am still fairly new to the site and this will be my first review. No comments about the article as yet. --Mykleavens (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial points and suggestions (review placed on hold)

I've read this a couple of times now and before I even go into the specific GA criteria, I am placing the review on hold for two weeks to give editors time to address various concerns I have at present (there may well be more to come). I have several initial comments to make and I am proposing a rewrite of the lead:

• 1. I'm not sure if anything can be done about this but I would prefer the title to be Liverpool Football Club in Europe because I see "F.C." as an unnecessary abbreviation that may not be clear to all readers.

I disagree with this, the main article about the club is Liverpool F.C. with the abbreviation intact. Why should this page be named differently? I think there have been discussions before about this at WP:FOOTY before, so it is probably best to look through them for guidance on the issue. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 2. The club and the team are singular entities and should be denoted by "it" and "its", not the plural "they" and "their". This should be fixed throughout. The frequent use of "the club" is a distraction and should mostly be replaced by "Liverpool", subject to context.

I'm sure there is convention at WP:FOOTY to choose "they" a number of featured articles such as Ipswich Town F.C., Manchester United F.C. and Arsenal F.C. so I would bring the issue there because if these are articles are featured and use that convention. Plus those articles also use "the club" frequently, I also do not understand why it's a distraction. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 3. I'm proposing a new version of the lead below but one thing that stands out here and elsewhere in the article is a need to clarify the current status of the Premier League vis-à-vis the former Football League Division One. The article tends to give a misleading impression about the Premier League when half of Liverpool's European qualifications were by virtue of their success in the old First Division.

done NapHit (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• 4. "Milan" is called "A.C. Milan" and should be referenced as such throughout. Similar examples are Ajax Amsterdam, Deportivo Alavés, Olympique Lyonnais, Olympique de Marseille and so on: I'm finding too much colloquial rendering of team names.

Again we do not refer to clubs by there full name but by there most common name see WP:COMMONNAME. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 5. Remove all references to the Intercontinental Cup and its successor as that is out of scope: the article is about European football.

I'm not sure about this. Granted it is not technically European competition but entry is gained through winning a European competition so on that basis I think it comes under the scope. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 6. It is not clear if Carragher's appearance record is Liverpool-based or if he is the English or even European record holder; and, as he is a current player, this needs to be made clear. Similarly, the statement about Gerrard's scoring record needs to note that he is a current player. At what date did the two statistics apply?

• 7. Re Gerrard, the sentence "The most goals scored in European competition by a Liverpool player is Steven Gerrard, with 38" is poor English. Suggested change: "Steven Gerrard with 38 goals (to May 2011) is Liverpool's record goalscorer in European competition".

think this was the sentence in the record section, which is now bullet points NapHit (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• 8. The table in the Record by Season section doesn't provide enough information. The equivalent article about Manchester United has a table providing the results of all matches played in European competition in an easy to read and useful format. More research is needed to provide similar detail for Liverpool: the "last opposition" column says nothing to the reader and looks like an easy way out.

With all respect that article hasn't been up for GA. To have a table of all the matches played in Europe would be unruly and more than double the size of the page. With Liverpool likely to add to their European experience I don't think this table is appropriate. I'll remove the last oppsotition column as you're not the first user to complain about it. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 9. The article needs careful checking for factual errors. For example, Liverpool did not win the 1970–71 FA Cup but was the runner-up and qualified for the CWC because Arsenal had "done the double". Another one is the misinformation that Shankly "resigned" and "was replaced" by Paisley. It is more accurate to say that Shankly retired and was succeeded by Paisley.

done NapHit (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• 10. There are several examples of what looks like tabloid-speak, always a danger when writing about football, though at least the awful "grabbed a goal" cliche does not make an appearance. In effect, this is about the need to remove cliches. An example is this passage: "The club reached the semi-finals of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the 1970–71 season. They faced fellow English club Leeds United, who won 1–0 on aggregate en route to winning the competition". Instead of "the club", use "Liverpool". This applies throughout as already mentioned. Remove "fellow English club" and suchlike redundant expressions. Better is: "Liverpool reached the semi-finals of the 1970–71 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup but lost 0–1 on aggregate to Leeds United".

gone through the article and cleared this up hopefully NapHit (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• 11. The main narrative ends with the defeat by Atlético Madrid in 2010 which was the last match under Benitez. A new section is needed to begin with the 2010–11 season and point out the changes that have taken place at Anfield this season, albeit these did not produce immediate European success.

done NapHit (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• 12. The introduction to the Records section is compressed into a single paragraph when the individual facts should be presented as bullet points for readability.

done NapHit (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with the lead which needs to be revised. Taking the current content and without introducing any additional information, I would write the lead along these lines:

Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, which has regularly taken part in European competitions since its first appearance in the 1964–65 European Cup. Qualification for English clubs is determined by the team's performance in its domestic league and cup competitions. From 1964 to 1985, Liverpool qualified for the European Cup several times by winning the former Football League First Division. Since 1992, qualification to the renamed UEFA Champions League has been via a top four placing in the Premier League. Liverpool has also achieved European qualification via the FA Cup and Football League Cup and has played in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup competitions.

Liverpool's first participation in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland. Liverpool competed in Europe for 21 consecutive seasons until the 1985 European Cup final, the occasion of the Heysel Stadium disaster, following which all English clubs were banned from UEFA competitions for 6 seasons. Since being reaccepted in 1992, Liverpool has qualified for either the Champions League or the UEFA Cup in most seasons to date.

Liverpool has won the the European Cup five times, a British record, most recently in the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final. As a result of that victory, Liverpool won the European Champion Clubs' Cup outright and was awarded a multiple winner badge. Only Real Madrid and A.C. Milan have won the competition on more occasions. Liverpool has won the UEFA Cup (now called the Europa League) three times, a record shared with Juventus and Internazionale.

Liverpool's record win in Europe is an 11–0 victory over Strømsgodset in the 1974–75 Cup Winners' Cup; this is the club's record victory in all competitions. Jamie Carragher holds the club record for the most appearances in European competition with 136 to the end of the 2010–11 season. Steven Gerrard is Liverpool's record goalscorer in Europe with 35 to the end of the 2010–11 season.

The above are first impressions. I will continue to review in detail and will work on the GA criteria now to complete the review in due course, providing the points raised to date are addressed. --Mykleavens (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Further points following copyedits and review of GA criteria: article remains on hold

Over the last couple of days, I've tried to improve the wording, content and layout of the article which was nowhere near a pass for being well-written. Although some further tweaks will be needed, it is now in a much better shape (a bit like Liverpool themselves in recent months!). However, I still have concerns and am not able to pass the article yet, but I'm not going to fail it as I think it is definitely heading in the right direction. I'm continuing to keep it on hold so that more work can be done within the term of this review.

1. As I said at the outset, I am very unhappy with the title. Okay, I am English and interested in sport, though football is not my favourite. As such, I immediately understand this article is about a football club playing European matches. But I have asked four people I know who have no interest in football to tell me what they think the title indicates and, apart from one lady who remembered that Liverpool does have a famous football team, they were confused. The initials F.C. could mean almost anything to a non-football fan and the words "in Europe" completely lack context. An American gentleman guessed that F.C. might mean "Ferry Company" given the Mersey ferry association; all of them pointed out that the C could stand for city, council, committee, etc. I know you have followed football project precedent in using this title but, although many football supporters do not realise it, the majority of people do not like football and have no knowledge of it. To them, this form of title is cryptic and misleading. My colleagues all think the title should be "Liverpool Football Club in European competition". However, this would appear to be an issue for the whole site rather than just the football project and I doubt if I would be able or willing to take it further so I'll let this go.
2. When I suggested above that the club and the team are singular entities, I was incorrect as the team is clearly a plurality so I accept the "they" and "their" in that context, but any references to the club must be treated as singular. I think we have resolved this now via all the copyediting.
3. Re points 3 to 12 raised above, I'm happy with the responses provided and the actions taken so those are all now closed.
4. This is the first of the new points. The main reason I am keeping the article on hold is because of the coverage. The article is essentially statistical in spirit with a focus on which competition Liverpool played in each season, having done such and such in the previous English season, and how far they got before winning or being eliminated. There is nothing about tactics and nothing, except goalscoring, about the key players. Several key players such as Callaghan, Clemence, Heighway, Hansen and Alonso are not mentioned at all. The article needs to discuss the strategies and tactics used by the major managers in European matches: comparing their approach to a home leg with that to an away leg; European tactics versus league tactics; evolution of tactics from Shankly to Benitez, etc. The reader needs to know why Kevin Keegan, for example, was such a significant player for Liverpool in European matches and how Shankly and Paisley made use of him. At present, the article fails the broad in coverage requirement.
5. One further suggestion I have re the scope is around Liverpool's transfer activity in the European market. This began with Keegan's move to Hamburg and then there was a gradual influx of players like Molby, Henchoz and Hyppia from the continent before it escalated under Houllier and Benitez. Benitez in particular wished to improve Liverpool's chances of European success by introducing a largely Spanish contingent including Reina, Alonso, Torres. All of this is relevant to the club's strategy in European football and needs to be discussed. --Mykleavens (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this is related to this article. I think they were bought simply to improve the team domestically and in European football, I'll try and mention signings where necessary Keegan and Dalglish I think are necessary due to debate Keegan being replaced other tan this I'm not sure they would fit in. I'll see what I can fit in though. NapHit (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The Shankly section does not mention one single Liverpool player but it does name a referee and one opponent. Major Liverpool players under Shankly were St John, Hunt, Yeats, Callaghan, Smith, Hughes, Clemence, Heighway, Keegan, Toshack, etc. The 1973 UEFA Cup win, a milestone in the club's history, is dismissed in a few words.
2. No mention of the Super Cup win against Hamburg – needs to be rectified. --Mykleavens (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
3. The season summary table links are unsatisfactory and need to be overhauled. The season column links to both English seasons and Liverpool seasons while the competition season link is under the right-hand column for the round. Also, there is no need to link any of the competition names as this amounts to repetition. Please unlink everything in the competition and round columns and use the specific tournament link for each season. --Mykleavens (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking repetitively in sortable tables is allowed as this quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) states: "where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links." other than that I'll start moving the links shortly. NapHit (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Although the 2005 final was a great match, I think recentism is evident given the emphasis placed on it. The 1977 final was the key Liverpool triumph in Europe as it opened the floodgates at a time when Liverpool were not the competition favourites they subsequently became. A balance is needed when referring to individual events so my concern is about undue weight.
2. I cannot see anything that suggests original research or point of view (apart from perhaps the recentism concern) so it is objective and passes that requirement.
3. I am reasonably happy with the citations except that more may well be called for and I have already added a few citation requests here and there. Given that additional work is needed to broaden the coverage, I haven't reviewed the existing citations in detail as yet but, in general, they are plentiful and varied. I would, however, like to see more use of the books in the bibliography and less of the internet.
4. I have no problem with neutrality. The article is stable and is well supplied with images that cannot have any copyright problems. It easily passes all three of these criteria.
5. Subject to the way the additional material is incorporated, the article would currently pass the well-written requirement although it has needed a lot of copyedit work to bring it up to standard and, as mentioned above, more may be necessary. I will expect the standard to be maintained as the coverage increases.

To summarise, the article remains on hold for one month pending additional information to broaden its coverage. I'll update the GA nominations page accordingly and will keep looking at the article to help where I can. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've noted your comments and I'm grateful for you allowing the process to continue. I've added more additional per the comments you left above I would just like to know if I'm on the right tracks and where more information could be added. Cheers NapHit (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Month's almost up so everything should be addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Verdict

You've done everything I've asked and I have been quite strict to try and make this not just good but better. It's been a close run thing on occasion but the article is there now. Please try to ensure it retains its current good writing as that was at first the main barrier it faced. It's a good article now so well done. And I hope to see some more Champions League content in 2012–13! --Mykleavens (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)