Talk:2007 UEFA Champions League final/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kits

I saw on Sky Sports News there now (12:42) that Liverpool will be wearing red and Milan wearing white in the final, but as it was just on TV, I can't source it, even though I added it to the page.

Ssoulakiotis

Hi All, I've updated a scan of the tickets of the final. They just arrived this morning! If anyone know how to format a thumbnail box and add it then it would be great. Unfortunately, I baffled as to how to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was spat on and added by Ssoulakiotis (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC). [1] --Ssoulakiotis 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Match lineup pic

A small complaint to a great job, but Reina should be wearing Yellow/Orange not black. :) Gaijin84 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It shows the keeper in the home kit, yellow/orange is the away Chaza93 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But it should be showing the kit he actually wore on the night, i.e. the yellow/orange one. PeeJay 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This isn't really a page for discussion of the match, just for the article itself. ArtVandelay13 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[Tries to remain upbeat about the football-article editing gene pool] - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Harsh, but true. :) -- Hux 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What sport was this?

Is anyone else amazed that the main text of the article currently (1:15 UTC May 24) doesn't mention what sport this was? (It appears in some of the footnotes and the categories, but not once in the main text!) As an American who doesn't follow football at all, I happen to know what sport UEFA is from other Wikipedia articles, but I think a "worldwide perspective" would call for mentioning football (soccer) prominently in the lead section! If I didn't read Wikipedia regularly, I would never have heard of UEFA and would completely lack context for this article. Schoen 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold on this point, but I would still like to remind people writing about sports topics to explicitly mention what sport they're writing about for the benefit of people in countries where those sports are not as well-known. Schoen 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I piped the football (soccer) link (to appear as football), since it's a European football article. There's a point at which we have to let Americans learn for themselves. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide it is known that it is football... its just in USA/Canada it might not be known. --chandler 10:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The Aussies, New Zealanders and South Africans refer to it as soccer. Even some people in Wales refer to it as soccer, due to rugby football being the predominant sport down here. PeeJay 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My analogy for this would be to an American writing an article about a World Series without mentioning that the players were playing baseball. Schoen 15:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Football means something very different in Australia, suggest changing it to soccer. Only joking. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the first sentence displayed link from "football" to the name of the article it is actually linking to "association football" and then use the more common name "football" in the rest of the article? Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ticket trouble and violence

Surely the ticket trouble with Liverpool fans with genuine tickets being denied entry should be mentione along with the violence resulting from the decision. Plokt

If you feel like writing it up, go ahead. PeeJay 09:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. :) -- Hux 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from *[2] Furious supporters either drifted away disconsolately or in some cases managed to dodge through police buses set up as a barrier to funnel fans into the ground

Would a section on the problems before the game be worth going into more detail. Londo06 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy or non-controversy?

In the match summary we have the following text:

"Their desperation was then compounded by the referee, Herbert Fandel, who then controversially ended the game 20 seconds earlier than the three minutes indicated by the fourth official."

I deleted it, but then it was added back in by another editor, deleted by a third, and added in once more by a fourth. My reason for deleting it is that there is no controversy here - both the referee and the fourth official keep track of how much time should be added on at the end of each half and it's the referee who has the final say on the accuracy of that time-keeping. If he thinks that his timekeeping is more accurate than that signaled by the fourth official then he is perfectly entitled to overrule him. This is not at all unusual, nor is it controversial. Rather than delete the text again I would prefer to get the opinions of those who are editing the article and reach a consensus. So what do you think? -- Hux 11:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that although the act in itself was not controversial, the reaction of the fans and Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez made it notable. Perhaps "controversially" is an inappropriate word to use for this situation, but I think the fact that the three minutes indicated wasn't played is worth mentioning, especially since Liverpool were on the attack as the ref blew. -- PeeJay 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited to encompass its significance, making sure not to use the word "controversial".BeL1EveR 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this novel idea. Lets get sources for ANY material that is being questioned or appears to be original research. I tivo-ed the game but who wants to watch it now that I now what happened. The game is how many hours old and there is already a full blown article with commentary. Awesome :) --Tom 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)ps I would delete that commentary/material unless it can be properly sourced. Thanks --Tom 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Defo controversy. Londo06 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref blows whistle early

Guys, can we please wait until we have a reliable source that says the ref did what the article is saying he did? Right now we have a citation that gives a minute by minute recap. In it, it mentions that a player or coach(i don't know these guys) complained about an early stop?? This is not a reliable source unless it is stated that way. --Tom 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that was reverted with the edit summary "anybody watching would see that it ended early". This is the epitimy(sp) of original research. I will edit it accordingly to match the cite, ok? --Tom 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to match the text to the citation. ok now? Thanks --Tom 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this again, since it is unsourced. Thanks, --Tom 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Will look for a source because the ref blew 20 secs early, not taking into account a substitution 2 mins past the 90th minute. Big mess up. Will cite and source it over the next couple of days. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 15:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you're calling it a "big mess up" shows that you're biased, which is why it shouldn't be in the article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just understanding the rules, they deserved more time. Simple as. Fact.CorleoneSerpicoMontana 18:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, it's you that's not understanding the rules. The person who decides when the game will end is the referee. The fourth official keeps a separate account of the time in order to assist the referee. If the referee disagrees with the amount of time the fourth official indicates should be added on then he is perfectly within his rights to overrule him and signal the end of play earlier (or later) than that time. That being the case, it's not appropriate for this article to make a big thing out of the fact that there was a discrepancy between the ref's blowing of the whistle and the added time shown by the fourth official. -- Hux 05:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I was referring to generalling time-keeping, not who is in charge of it. 20 secs plus knocked off, plus the lack of additional time for a substitution. I pretty much think you would have to accept that it is a fact that is worthy of note when sourced and cited. By your account above, you are stating that the ref willfully ended the game early, or failed to take into account the stoppages involved in the 2nd half. Either is a valid reason for inlcusion, due to a level of negligence or a willfull act. Will source it. It was discussed after the match. I will find a source and cite it. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 10:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what Hux was saying. The time that the fourth official indicated was merely a guideline, not the absolute amount of time that the referee had to add on to the 90 minutes. It is the referee's decision, when it comes to the amount of time to add on, not the fourth official's. It might be worth mentioning, just because Benitez seemed annoyed by it, but not because the referee made a mistake, because he didn't. PeeJay 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay I understand the ref has the control over the timekeeping, however the failure to add on the sub to the additional three minutes was an error. The only way around that would be if the ref thought there was an min and a half less than the timekeeper on the side. It is possible, just poor officiating in the heat of battle.CorleoneSerpicoMontana 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just provide reliable/verifiable source for any addition please, thanks! --Tom 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Referee

In Italy newscasters said that the referee didn't punish with yellow cards many fouls , such some as last man standing from the rear , that the english side commmitted.I'm proposing to delete the 2° citation.

He din't punish Agger when stopping Kaka in first half. That's about it.Rodvand 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Offside?

It's suspected to be an offside on Kuyt with the second goal, but I haven't seen any clear evidence. No good angels from the live coverage, haven't seen any later. Any good sources, a picture maybe? Rodvand 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ladbrokes

The British bookmaker Ladbrokes rated the chance of a repeat of the 2005 Champions League Final (3-0 to Milan at half-time, 3-3 at the end of normal time and Liverpool to win on penalties) a 2007-1 long shot

Did Ladbrokes specify that the game would have to end at 3-3 at the end of extra time? Because if not, it could have ended at 4-4 or whatever which is different from what happened in 2005 (obviously) Nil Einne 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup they did it says , repeat of 2005 final including 3:3 AET Chaza93 20:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Attendance

In the article the attendance is listed as 74,000, yet the Stadium only holds 71,000 and UEFA's allocation was about five-thousand lower than that. I know that some Liverpool fans managed to sneak in without tickets, but surely this attendance is inaccurate? --Yatesric 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, people were doing anything they could, some were even standing, (if you look back the first ever FA cup final, in a stadium of 60,000 odd, there were 200,000 people) Chaza93 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

What I find so frustrating about Wikipedia is the policy on original research. Not in the sense that I like it, but the fact it is just unrealistic and unrepresentative of reality.

Take this article, for example. A large chunk of it is original research, and that is undeniable. Look at the descriptions of the first and the second half. I have no problem with it, but I am just worried that certain Wiki bureaucrats can use "no original research" to stifle some of the best bits of Wikipedia. And this article is a demonstration of that.--EddieBernard 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between original research and creating an account of events, but I see where you're coming from. PeeJay 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I too think it boils down a lot on personal opinion and sadly, sometimes, in personal.. bias. It is common sense that *anything* can be considered original research unless there's a source link next to it. In effect that makes *anyone* in a legitimate position to question anything without a source. It can be a good thing and a bad thing and it's just a matter of writers' consensus in a large part. --77.49.19.44 11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then support http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#WikiThink ;-). Further, in section "Problems before the match" it is stated that "...but most parties agree that the blame lies with UEFA and insufficient planning..." and a reference is given to http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6687433.stm where Gordon Farquhar questions and answers himself... So, usage of references, can also be used to distort the truth... Dpser 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the citation doesn't support the "most parties agree" assertion. But more importantly, no Wikipedia article should contain assertions like that anyway (see WP:WEASEL). I've changed the language twice now to remove the weasel words and make it fit what the citation was actually claiming. I really hope that it doesn't get reverted again. -- Hux 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, but somebody is being persistent with reverting it. I've edited it slightly to give a more balanced view. The unacceptable word here was "most", which I have temporarily changed to "many". This could be considered a valid statement if a couple more sources are provided giving examples of these "many" parties, i.e. neutral parties other than the police.BeL1EveR 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be Original research when it is the considered truth, verified suitably by official sources. Blame; UEFA then Liverpool fans followed by Greek Police. I haven't found a soul who would argue against that, and then be able to find a source to back it up. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is well balanced as it is. I suppose for an article like this we do need to cite every sentence as it is such a big event. Alexsanderson83 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Reads Well, but...

The Caborn quote is mmisleading, the British govt is seeking an explanation from UEFA, the Police in Athens have had less flak than the Liverpool fans. Londo06 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's misleading then your post doesn't explain how, at least not as far as I can see. From my reading of the press in general, blame is being cast at the Liverpool fans (especially those with fake tickets) and at UEFA so that's why I highlighted those two when I made the edit. I don't think it's appropriate at this point to start making judgments about who is more to blame. The quote from the sports minister simply illustrates that the British government is primarily concerned with the UEFA issues (and I fully expect that quote to be replaced once the minister meets with UEFA and the Greek authorities on June 5). The police, as far as I can see, aren't really being blamed by anyone, certainly not by the two people quoted in the article.

Maybe you could elaborate on why you think it's currently misleading? -- Hux 09:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, thats interesting re Liverpool fans blame. Across the board I've found 1. UEFA 2. Liverpool fans 3. Police.

With regards to the British govt that is the only quote I have seen that seeks answers from the Greek Authorities and UEFA. The quote states the Greeks first and would emphasize their accountability. Of the many articles online and in newspapers it is UEFA that Govt officials want answers from. The govt in the UK has little problems with the police, less the liverpool fans I would say. Londo06 10:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GA comments

Hello everyone, here are my comments following reviewing the article for good article status.

• "Before 2007, AC Milan's last triumph had been in the 2003 final. Milan and Liverpool are amongst the three most successful teams in Europe in terms of European Cup titles, with seven and five titles respectively. Only 9,000 tickets for the final went on general sale, with the remainder being shared between the two teams (17,000 each) and the UEFA family and sponsors (20,800).[1][2] The English FA bid unsuccessfully to host the final at Wembley Stadium.[3]" - this paragraph is very choppy...
  • You only mention Milan's last triumph.
  • Suddenly we move from titles to tickets.
  • Suddenly from tickets to stadia - was Wembley the only unsuccessful bid?
• Why is some of the route to the final in a general heading and not placed in the respective sections for each club?
• No need to repeat Inzaghi's first name once you've mentioned it, e.g. here: "...after Filippo Inzaghi scored on his 33rd birthday.[12] The second leg in Belgrade was won by Milan 2–1, with the goals coming from Filippo Inzaghi ..."
• Wikilink Anfield.
• "at Milan's home ground the San Siro" - missing a comma.
• "from their two matches so far." - so far is redundant.
• "... came to Bayern's rescue ..." a bit non-encyclopaedic.
• Instead of Manchester why not Old Trafford?
• You wikilink some players and not others, e.g. Rooney isn't while Daniel van Buyten is. Any reason for this inconsistent approach?
• Why not Allianz Arena instead of Munich?
• Rossoneri should be italicised if you ask me - it's not clear it's a nickname otherwise.
• "Liverpool faced the team that finished below in Group C" - below them?
• "Chelsea won the first leg 1–0 after Joe Cole scored on 29 minutes, this represented, the first time in a UEFA Champions League semi-final, that Chelsea have a lead to defend in the return leg." - awkward sentence - break it up.
• "Tired minds and weary legs failed to conjure a match-winner" - original research unless you can quote it. Remove or rephrase.
• Don't overwikilink players either though, Crouch and Kaka are linked several times in the table and then again in the next section.
• "AC Milan fielded the oldest starting eleven ever in a Champions League final (average age 31 years, 34 days), while Maldini was the oldest outfield player ever in a final (38 years and 331 days)[44]" - needs a full stop at the end, and I hate parentheses so why not write "with an average age of" and "at 38 years and..."?
• Kaka or Kaká, be consistent.
• "to grab a goal" - rephrase.
• "...played on the PA the moment ..." expand a bit - don't like this abbreviation in the prose.
• "on March 9, " - make full date here.
• "adidas" or "Adidas"?
• "The panels of the ball are arranged in the same pattern as the +Teamgeist ball used at the 2006 FIFA World Cup." - no citation for this.

So, quite a bit of work to do, but all little things so I'll put the GA on hold - let me know when you're ready for a re-review. The Rambling Man 10:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Further comments:

• "Before 2007, AC Milan's last triumph had been in the 2003 final. While Liverpool's was against Milan in the 2005 final."
  • Not good grammar, should be one sentence.
  • Why wikilink 2003 final and not 2005 final?
• "...some of the problems before the match.[4] Prior to the start of the match,..." - repetitive "before/prior" etc. Rework a little.
• You can write that the match against Red Star was in the third qualifying round, that puts it in context. I didn't expect you to erase that information, it's all part of their route to the final.
• "AC Milan fielded the oldest starting eleven ever in a Champions League final, with the at average age 31 years, 34 days. While Paolo Maldini was the oldest outfield player ever in a final at 38 years and 331 days.[43]" - not two sentences, it's one, replace the . with a ,
• [26] needs a title.

Fix these and we're done I hope! The Rambling Man 12:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We're done, it's a GA now. Well done. The Rambling Man 13:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article??

More than half the text is about the matches the teams played before the final. Pretty important in a newspaper buildup special colour supplement, but surely too much emphasis for an article purporting to be about the final itself. Simply stating the match/group results with a short paragraph on any noteworthy incidents therein should suffice here. jnestorius^(talk) 02:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this article no longer fulfils the Featured Article criteria, you should take it to a Featured Article Review. – PeeJay 02:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "no longer fulfils" isn't appropriate, since it's not that the material was inserted after FA status. Two reviewers raised this objection at the time of the promotion; there was no response to the objection, but it still got promoted. It seems a clear violation of criteria #4: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail".

Nominating an article for FAR says "Nominators ... should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), ... Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content." Maybe I'll try on Tuesday. jnestorius^(talk) 04:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess, I was the only one opposing the promotion of this article originally, and I still think the FA status is entirely undeserved. The clear majority of the text is not about the actual topic - what more needs to be said really? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this article itself, but I'd like to thank you for taking the time to vote against articles proposed for FA. We've had a poor quality process at least in the last six months, where several bad articles made it to FA because the principal author and 4 or 5 friends or likers-of-the-subject voted "yes", and that's all it took. We need more people to hang around the FA pages and vote "no" generally. I never think to do it myself. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was suprised when this passed. I only gave weak support because of this. There is clearly an outstanding opp vote that you can clearly see on the nomination page. I alway thought that all outstanding opp vote had to be addressed in someway before Raul passed them, maybe he made a (gasp!) mistake. Buc (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the Route to the final

As a first suggestion, I say replace all the current prose with the tables for groups C and H, and the results of Liverpool and Milan's matches. A two-sentence summary of the competition format should suffice as an intro for the completely uninformed. All other details belong in the subarticle. jnestorius^(talk) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Group C

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Liverpool	6	4	1	1	11	5	6	13
PSV Eindhoven	6	3	1	2	6	6	0	10
Bordeaux	6	2	1	3	6	7	-1	7
Galatasaray	6	1	1	4	7	12	-5	4

Group H

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Milan	6	3	1	2	8	4	4	10
Lille	6	2	3	1	8	5	3	9
AEK Athens	6	2	2	2	6	9	-3	8
Anderlecht	6	0	4	2	7	11	-4	4

(KEY: Pts= Points; Pld= Matches Played; W= Matches Won; D= Matches Drawn; L= Matches Lost; GF= Goals For; GA= Goals Against; GD= Goal Difference)

• A mention of the third qualifying round has to be made prior to those, as it explains how the teams got to the group stage, however it doesn't need to be long. I also think that a mention of injuries and suspensions could be made, for example Fabio Aurelio's injury which ruled him out of the final, though again it doesn't need to be long. Another issue this raises is that the article needs to expand the match section, which is particularly as there are limited sources on the matter NapHit (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an automatic requirement to lengthen the match section to "compensate" for the shorter earlier section; WP:FACR does not specify a minimum article length, just "appropriate length". Of course, any additional (encyclopedic, verifiable) info would be good. jnestorius^(talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about preliminary rounds; also injuries, suspensions, cup-tied players, if any. And in the spirit of WP:OBVIOUS, some explanation of the overall format. Here's para one:

---

Main article: UEFA Champions League 2006-07

Teams qualified for the Champions League group stage, either directly or through three preliminary rounds, based on both their position in the preceding domestic league and the strength of that league (see UEFA league coefficient). Both Liverpool and Milan entered the competition in the third and final preliminary round: Liverpool by finishing third in the FA Premier League 2005–06, Milan by finishing third in Serie A 2005–06. Milan had originally finished second in Serie A, but were deducted 30 points for their part in a match-fixing scandal. The original punishment, reduced on appeal, would have barred them from the Champions League altogether. The group stages were contested as eight double round robin groups of four teams, the top two qualifying for the knockout stages. Knockout ties were decided based on home and away matches, with the away goals rule, extra time and penalty shootouts as tiebreakers if needed.

---

Made a few changes, to include en dashes, overall it looks good, I would include the uefa coefficient wikilink into the strength of the league bit, instead of having it in parentheses, but overall it looks very good, of course now what about the knockout rounds? NapHit (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I agree with your concerns jnestorius. I raised some particularly points with the 2005 Final at its GA nomination. Just glancing at the route to the final, I would barely mention the group stage, and just say they both topped the groups with X points - I wouldn't even use a table. Then I would trim particularly details about the goals from the other games. Do we need to know how Bayern scored their goals in a 2-2 draw with Milan? I don't really think so. Peanut4 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed!

Hello,
I have translated this article into Hebrew, expecting it will achieve FA status there as well. I have faced criticism about the lack of information about the media coverage. If anyone can help me here, I will really appreciate it. Maybe we can add the info both here and into the Hebrew article. YemeniteCamel (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Route to the final

Sorry for the delay, but I've finally worked a complete proposal to replace the current Route to the final section. It's between the next two ruled lines. I've added a references section after that if anybody wants to check them.

---

Main article: UEFA Champions League 2006–07

Teams qualified for the Champions League group stage, either directly or through three preliminary rounds, based on both their position in the preceding domestic league and the strength of that league. Both Liverpool and Milan entered the competition in the third and final preliminary round: Liverpool by finishing third in the FA Premier League 2005–06, Milan by finishing third in Serie A 2005–06. Milan had originally finished second in Serie A, but were deducted 30 points for their part in a match-fixing scandal. The original punishment, reduced on appeal, would have barred them from the Champions League altogether. The group stages were contested as eight double round robin groups of four teams, the top two qualifying for the knockout stages. Knockout ties were decided based on home and away matches, with the away goals rule, extra time and penalty shootouts as tiebreakers if needed.

A.C. Milan			Round	Liverpool
Opponent	Result	Legs	Qualifying phase	Opponent	Result	Legs
Red Star Belgrade	3–1	1–0 home; 2–1 away	Third qualifying round	Maccabi Haifa	3–2	2–1 home; 1–1 away
Main article: UEFA Champions League 2006-07 group stage : Group H Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts AC Milan 6 3 1 2 8 4 +4 10 Lille 6 2 3 1 8 5 +3 9 AEK Athens 6 2 2 2 6 9 -3 8 Anderlecht 6 0 4 2 7 11 -4 4			Group stage	Main article: UEFA Champions League 2006-07 group stage : Group C Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Liverpool 6 4 1 1 11 5 +6 13 PSV Eindhoven 6 3 1 2 6 6 0 10 Bordeaux 6 2 1 3 6 7 -1 7 Galatasaray 6 1 1 4 7 12 -5 4
Opponent	Result	Legs	Knockout rounds	Opponent	Result	Legs
Celtic	1–0	0–0 away; 1–0 (aet) home	First knockout round	FC Barcelona	2–2 (away goals)	2–1 away; 0–1 home
Bayern Munich	4–2	2–2 home; 2–0 away	Quarter-finals	PSV Eindhoven	4–0	3–0 away; 1–0 home
Manchester United	5–3	2–3 away; 3–0 home	Semi-finals	Chelsea	1–1 (4–1 pens)	0–1 away; 1–0 home

---

A couple of things that might be worth mentioning:

• Haifa's home leg was played in Kiev because of the Israel-Lebanon war
• Aurelio's injury against PSV

So, does anybody have any comments? jnestorius^(talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No? Right then; done. jnestorius^(talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/news0036-athens-stadium.html
  • In 2007 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-05-26 03:05:02, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-05-27 15:21:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-06-15 19:14:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.readabet.com/index.php/football/article/10587
  • In 2007 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-05-26 03:04:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-05-27 15:21:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-06-15 19:14:44, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 UEFA Champions League Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk • contribs • count) 00:41, 12 September 2011 (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): 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:

General

• Images are good
• References 12 through 17 all need to be replaced - they all point to this year's competition, not the 2007 event.
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Remaining references seem alright. Spot check revealed no issue with close paraphrasing.
• Three disambig links that need re-targeting.
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• NPOV, stable, no edit wars.

Lead

• Where I am from, this team is always referred to as being A. C. Milan to differentiate it from Inter Milan. For the sake of people like me, I would specify the team is A. C. Milan on both the first use in the lead and in the infobox. After that, it is established which Milan team is referenced.
  • I am willing to make this change, but it is customary on Wikipedia to refer to Associazione Calcio Milan as "Milan" and Football Club Internazionale Milano as "Internazionale". There is a similar tendency to refer to Milan as "AC Milan" and Internazionale as "Inter Milan" in the UK, but since this is viewed as incorrect by Italians, we try to avoid it wherever possible. Furthermore, no one ever refers to Inter as simply "Milan", so it should be pretty plain that any references to "Milan" refer to Associazione Calcio Milan. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If that is the standard, I won't question it, but bear in mind that the article does need to cater to a world wide audience. Resolute 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Milan's victories from close affairs to comfortable victories." - Missing word. Their victories varied?
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• "They defeated Celtic by a single goal over two legs, while they beat Manchester United 5–3 on aggregate." - I am impressed they beat Celtic at the same time they defeated Man U.  ;). Perhaps "They defeated Celtic by a single goal over two legs, then beat Manchester United 5-3 on aggregate."?
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Route to the final

• "A 1–0 victory and 2–1 victory in the away leg ensured Milan would enter the group stage of the Champions League." - Try to avoid duplicating words so closely. Perhaps something like: "Two victories, 1–0 at home and 2–1 in the away leg, ensured Milan...", or something similar.
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Milan won three matches drawing one and losing two to finish top of the group with ten points and progress to the knockout round." - not a fan of the mixed tense here. "Milan won three matches, drew one and lost two, finishing top of the group..."? Keep in mind that I'm Canadian, so if the current wording is consistent with British English standards, disregard my comment.
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Liverpool gained entry to the competition after finishing third in the 2005–06 FA Premier League. As a result of finishing third..." - no need to state a second time that Liverpool finished third. Simplify to "As a result..."
  • I've put "As a result of their league position..." – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• "The second leg at Anfield was won 1–0 by Barcelona, however Liverpool progressed to the quarter-finals courtesy of the away goals rule." - fortunately, I know what the rule is, but for the education of a reader who might not, I'd just state that Liverpool advanced because of a greater number of away goals scored.

I personally think this is unnecessary, the link is provided in the lead, so if the reader wants to know what it is they can click on the link. I'm not sure its right to include a description when there is a page to do that. NapHit (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I would also link to that article in the body. That said, I'm not sure ".. by virtue of scoring more away goals" is worse than "...by virtue of the away goals rule". I won't hold up a GA pass on this point though. Use your best judgment. Resolute 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

First half

• "Liverpool playing in a 4-2-3-1 formation had the first attack of the match" - shouldn't there be commas there? "Liverpool, playing in a 4-2-3-1 formatiom, had the first attack..."?
  • I don't like splitting up sentences unnecessarily, so I've put "Playing in a 4-2-3-1 formation, Liverpool had the first attack..." – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Milan responded with Jamie Carragher clearing two low balls which heading towards the Liverpool goal." - Missing word there?
  • Completely reworded. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Second half

• "While Milan were unable to keep possession of the ball." - Incomplete sentence
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Post-match

• "The match was overshadowed by the death of Sevilla player Antonio Puerta, which raised the possibility that the match might not go ahead. It did however, Milan won the match 3–1 to secure their fifth Super Cup victory." - Too many uses of "match" in such a small space. Reword slightly?
  • Done. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall

Looks good. Only needs a few reference fixes and a small tightening of prose in a couple places. I am placing it on hold for now, and anticipate little issue with this being passed soon. Regards, Resolute 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think everything's has been addressed by a combination of myself and PeeJay, thank you for the review.

Indeed. Everything looks good, so I am listing it. Congrats! Resolute 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 UEFA Champions League Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2006/round%3D2361/match%3D300099/report%3Dmb.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160625162912/http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2006/matches/live/day%3D13/session%3D1/match%3D300099/matchcenterlight/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2006/matches/live/day%3D13/session%3D1/match%3D300099/matchcenterlight/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)