Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C. in European football/archive2

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 18:40, 3 March 2012 [1].

Liverpool F.C. in European football[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is now very close to featured standard. After the previous nomination failed i listed the article for peer review, which was constructive and addressed a number of issues with the article. Thanks n advance for taking you rime to review the article, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Shankly years: "with some Liverpool players feeling cheated by his decisions" is one of those with + -ing sentence structures that the prose people complain about. Could use a re-wording, if possible.~~

done NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as a whole now reads "The second leg was controversial: Shankly described it as 'a war' he felt that the referee, Jose Maria Ortiz de Mendibel, had shown bias toward Internazionale, the Liverpool players felt cheated by his decisions." A never-ending sentence that needs a break or two, and some punctuation after the quote. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok made a few changes, should read better now. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fagan years: The Benfica link is a bit of overlinking, as the club was linked in the previous section. UEFA was also linked earlier in the body.~~

done NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Benitez years: Not sure a source from 2005 is enough to say that "debate still continues" about the controversial goal against Chelsea.~~

reworded NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes LFC History (refs 88, 89, and 93) a reliable source? I'm aware, since I've asked about it before, that other folks at FLC haven't voiced any issues regarding its reliability. However, this is a different process and the relative strength of sourcing required is probably still a little higher here than at FLC, much as I wish that FLC will achieve parity one day in this regard. Restating the case you've made for the site at FLC may help the source checkers here in their verdicts. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, LFC History is a statistical site which provide the official stats of the club. This is evidenced by the sixth paragraph on this page. NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~

In 'Return to Europe', "The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s as Liverpool won a cup treble with the UEFA Cup, the FA Cup and the League Cup" → replace 'with the' with 'consisting of the'

done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Benitez years, "A poor start, with two losses in their first four games...", need to clarify that they were in a group immediately. It was not necessarily a 'poor start' because they got through the treacherous third qualifying round, didn't they?! 'A poor start in the group stages...' would be better. That would mean 'in the group stages' near the end of the sentence becomes redundant.

implemented your suggestion NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Having finished fifth in the Premier League in 2004–05, Liverpool were not guaranteed entry into the Champions League, and faced the prospect of not being able to defend their European title", remove the comma between Champions League and 'and'.

done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A third-place finish in the 2007–08 Premier League...", Arsenal finished third in the Premier League in 2007–08, I'm guessing you mean fourth?

Indeed, not sure how I missed that one, done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For references, BBC Sport is the 'work', BBC is the 'publisher'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done, thanks for the comments, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As runners-up to Manchester United in the 1996 FA Cup Final, Liverpool were able to compete in the 1996–97 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup", isn't the Cup Winners' Cup for winners of domestic cup comeptitions? I am aware that as Manchester United won the double that season, their spot was allocated to Liverpool. You may need to clarify that; if you feel it has nothing to do with the main body of the article put it as a footnote, if you do think so -- slot it into the sentence.

added a bit about this, although it was in the article a bit earlier as liverpool qualified for it in 1971-72 despite losing the final to Arsenal. NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, must have missed that. Have reverted to its previous form.

"The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s", disambiguous - 1980s refer to a period. Ideally you should which season it is.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Liverpool advanced through three qualifying rounds and met Chelsea...", replace met with 'were paired up with'

reworded a bit different to yours, paired up with suggests they just played Chelsea, should read clearer now. NapHit (talk)

"A fifth place finish in the 2009–10 Premier League...", seventh? – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that, done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In several cases, such as this one, "By beating Roma 2–0 in the second group stage, Liverpool progressed to the quarter-finals. Liverpool..." wouldn't it be sufficent if you replace the bolded part with 'The club', or if you are referring to a specific game → 'The team'. I think you will find it flows better for one. Have a read through the entire article because I feel in some cases, not all it can be placed in.

Gone through the article, and replaced multiple uses of liverpool where appropriate NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup in the European Super Cup, but failed to retain the Super Cup", replace bit in bold with 'trophy'.

done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"UEFA banned English clubs" → "UEFA banned all English clubs"

done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under Return to Europe after Liverpool won the first leg against Bayern, "This appeared to be to Liverpool's advantage...", Could be improved no? Something like "This gave Liverpool a vital advantage..."

I think its fine the way it is, as it did appear to be to the club's advantage, yet they went out in the next leg. I think they the sentence is worded at the moment sums up what happened perfectly fine. NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A seventh place finish in the 2009–10 Premier League meant..." seventh-place should be hyphenated for consistency. – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 84 does not verify Liverpool group standing - in fact it's just the group tables for the competition this season.

added correct ref NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under records, is there 'Biggest defeat' to correspond 'Biggest win'? – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after a bit of searching, I've found it and added it. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A seventh-place finish in the 1998–99 FA Premier League meant the club did not qualify for Europe...", slight niggle with this part. Liverpool could have qualified by means of reaching a final of a domestic cup competition that season, so league form shouldn't take precedent regarding qualification in Europe. I would suggest adding "on virtue of their league position" at the end of the sentence or inbetween "Europe" and "in 1999–2000". – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure its necessary. I see what you're saying, but if they had qualified for Europe through a final, it would be mentioned, as it is whenever that has been the case in the rest of the text. NapHit (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. Prose is good and the article by and large is comprehensive because of the use of statistics and a detailed summary table. I have no problems with the sourcing as NapHit has shown the validity of LFCHistory above. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Ongoing prose issues:-

In the lead:-

To avoid confusing readers unaware of the history of European club competitions and the various changes of trophy name, I recommend you alter the first paragraph to read: "Since 1964, they have won 11 European trophies: the European Champion Clubs' Cup (formerly known as the "European Cup") five times..." etc. That should clarify that their 2005 victory was one of the five, not a separate achievement.
Rather than stating repeating in the third pargaraphs) the information already provided, that Liverpool have won the UEFA Cup three times, I'd alter the sentence in the third paragraph to read: "Liverpool's total of three UEFA Cup wins has been matched only by Internazionale and Juventus."
I would describe the 11–0 victory as their "biggest win in Europe" rather than their "record" win. The word "record" is distinctly overdone in this paragraph, what with Carragher, Gerrard etc

Introduction

During their time in the Second Division further competitions [plural] were created..." - but you only name one.
Clarify whether Liverpool's second division status disqualified them from ll European competitions; otherwise, why is it relevant?
A very clumsy sentence: "Liverpool were promoted back to the First Division during the 1961–62 season, and in the 1963–64 season they won the First Division enabling them to participate in European football for the first time in the 1964–65 European Cup." I hardly know where to start, but "back" is redundant: teams aren't promoted "during" seasons; the close repetition of "First Division" is clunky, etc. Suggested rephrase: "In 1962 Liverpool were promoted to the First Division. Two years later they won the Football League championship and thus made their European debut in the 1964–65 European Cup".
The remaining sentences in this paragraph likewise look in need of pruning and smoothing.

I have not gone beyond the Introduction section, but it is likely that similar problems occur throughout the text. I peer-reviewed this article nearly a year ago, and suggested then that it needed the services of a competent non-involved copyeditor. Since then the article has had two further peer reviews, a successful GAN and an unsuccessful FAC. I can't help feeling that all these reviews are missing the main problem, which is the prose. Otherwise the article is informative and well-presented, and could be the basis of a good featured article, but it does need that prose attention first. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Brian, I've addressed the comments you made. Regarding the prose the article has had at least two copyedits from the GOCE so the prose should be ok, but judging by your comments, this is not the case. It would be great if you could review a bit more of the article to see if the prose is shaky later on as well, cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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