Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 UEFA Champions League Final/archive2

2005 UEFA Champions League Final

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a couple of days improving the article I think it is close to achieving good article as the lack of images and the need for a proper copyedit mean it is not near featured standard yet. Hopefully any glaring discrepancies can be fixed and the article can improve. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably not enough experience to do a very good peer review and I'm not a native speaker either. But I will make some suggestions anyway:

Some links are still missing. In the first paragraph England has a wikilink, but Italy not so; links to tactics later, when discussing formations.
On other occasions the placement of links appears to be somewhat random (no offense). I don't understand, when you added a link to Clarence Seedorf and when not for example.
"goals coming courtesy of ...". It is probably not PoV but sounds very prosaic, too much for my linking. Probably it's just me being non-native.
Still some copyediting is required: In 'Route to the final "Third" is capitalized an the score of Milan vs. Inter has the wrong hyphen, etc. There are many similar smallish mistakes. (match summary, 5th para: "in three years he final")
References missing: Who expected Milan to field 4-4-2? Also Liverpool seems to have been expected to field a 4-5-1 according to the UEFA ref.
The match report is not using time consistently: Present here, past there, back and forth...
Would "post match" not be more appropriately be titled as "aftermath"?

As a conclusion I like to say that the PoV issues mentioned in the previous PR seem to have been mostly resolved. Copyediting is still an issue, though. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]