Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2008 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Nominator(s): – Pee Jay 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final. I believe it should be featured because it represents some of the best work on Wikipedia. I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article, as it is extremely well-written, it covers the subject comprehensively, all facts are adequately sourced, it's written in a neutral tone and the article is stable. The style of the article meets all criteria regarding the lead, the section hierarchy and the format of the citations. The article also contains sufficient images and other media, all of which are licensed correctly. Finally, the article is of a good length and doesn't go into unnecessary detail. – Pee Jay 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at present: Peejay has done the right things: having obtained GA status he (presumably) put the article through a peer review before bringing it here. Nevertheless, from a reading of the lead and background sections I'm not convinced that the article yet meets the standards required for FA promotion

Lead

Overall, the lead does not comply with the expectations of WP:LEAD. It should summarise the content of the whole article; at present it over-concentrates on incidents in the match
- Agreed, see below response. – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the time of the kick-off so important that it should appear in the first line of the article, and in two different time zones?
- No, it has been deleted. – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was also Chelsea's first European Cup final in their history." Clumsy and tautologous.
- Agreed. I'll work on re-jigging the lead to better express the historical significance of the match, both in relation to the past and the future. – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

There are several prose issues:

First sentence far too long (50+ words), and has "including" twice in quick succession.
- Sentence has been split and reworded. – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Their cup record was equally good, winning 10 of their 18 cup meetings..." Poor syntax, and in addition the same pronoun (their) is used in the sentence with two different meanings. In the first instance it refers to Man Utd, in the second it refers to both sides.
- I've replaced the second "their" with "the". – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic language: "honours were even" is just about OK, but "got their own back" definitely not.
- Reworded. – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of overdetailing in the second and third paragraphs. All that stuff about how the two sides fared historically in Europe against other English sides is worth a short sentence, no more. Likewise, you don't illustrate Chelsea's European credentials by referring to their non-appearance in the first European tournament sixty years ago. And the details (casualties etc) of the Munich disaster are extraneous to this article.
- I've cut down the info about past meetings between English opposition, but retained the detail in the form of footnotes. Is this acceptable? Also, I've cut down some of the Munich info, but I left in the bit about eight players being killed and Busby almost dying as I feel it lends necessary context to Busby rebuilding the team over the next 10 years prior to their first European Cup win in 1968. – Pee Jay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably further copyediting is needed, but I'd like to see the above issues addressed before proceeding with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cptnono

I appreciate that Brianboulton has found ways that the prose can approve and agree that nothing is ever complete. I have gone over the article multiple times during review and while trying to improve the articles on my prefered team. My only concern with supporting this article is that it sets too high of a standard in the topic area/(and I dislike both teams). Full-on support.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that the nominator will give a more considered and sensible response to the points that I have raised. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cptnono that nothing is ever perfect and that FA status is not a badge that nothing in the article needs changing, and I believe that the article could be given FA status as it stands. However, I am biased. I am a perfectionist and I thank Brianboulton for his review of the article, which I am currently using to help the article come as close to perfection as possible. I look forward to a more comprehensive review from Brianboulton so we can give the article the little gold star it deserves. – Pee Jay 16:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not meant as a slight on your review, Brianboulton. I think it is great that you are so thorough!Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; EddieHugh

There is a vast amount of trivia in this article that appears to have been included just because the information is available. As the opening phrase puts it, "The 2008 UEFA Champions League Final was a football match"; there's no need to tell the reader the personal history of the referee, how the ball was unveiled, how many flights were required to get supporters to Russia, visa arrangements, which people handed over the trophy before the match, the 50-year history of the stadium, great detail of the clubs' 50-year European history, team predictions, etc., etc. Without cutting perhaps 20%, this should fail, based on criterion 4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." EddieHugh (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- No response or activity of any kind on the article/review since Eddie's post so I'm going to archive this now. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before renominating, taking that time to consider and act upon the comments made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.