Talk:UEFA Euro 1980 final

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UEFA Euro 1980 Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/history/season=1980/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Goal minutes fixing

Goal minutes fixed according to DFB site or Belgian TV site and West Germany - Belgium full match
Genland PZ (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Those are not the authority on the times of the goals. UEFA organised the competition, so what they recorded is what we should say too. – PeeJay 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @PeeJay:
To rely on one single source seems to me not being the Wikipedia philosophy: “There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected” (from the General notability guideline).
I don’t see any reason for not improving UEFA site information as long as alternative sources are provided.
Let me show these examples:
Vandereycken didn’t score in the match England-Belgium(as in the title or the text).
The match was not played in “Delle Alpi” only built in 1990.
Best regards, Genland PZ (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that West Germany won their second UEFA European Championship in three editions when they defeated Belgium in the UEFA Euro 1980 Final?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Heythrop Zoological Gardens

5x expanded by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 15:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC).

• Hi The Rambling Man, review follows: article more than 5x expanded from 15 July; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I don't have access to the offline sources but found no issues with overly close paraphrasing from a spotcheck on the ones I could access; hook is interesting and mentioned in the article, technically cited offline but easily confirmed from other sources; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me, another in a fine series on this subject - Dumelow (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:UEFA Euro 1980 Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "although a number players" → "although a number of players"
   "which Vandereycken scored" → "that Vandereycken scored"
   Add a comma after "Hrubesch later said".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some Dude From North Carolina done, cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)