Wikipedia:Peer review/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots/archive3

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback from someone as to if or how I can make this to FA status. Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemonade51 -- Apologies that you have had to wait a while for comments. Many thanks for your work on this; it's a delicate football subject, which I think you have, on the whole, covered with partiality from both sides. I see no reason why this cannot be a FA one day, though my main concern lies with the prose needing tightening up. I have tidied up some of the referencing, though not all. My issues are as followed:

The lead is generally good. You could include a bit more on the aftermath; what the reaction was from the Turkish/British press/the FA/UEFA and all it really needs to be is a short sentence.
I would rename the first section as 'Background' or 'Context' because 'History' is indefinable; the whole incident is history.
Lead with the most important thing – what happened in the Galatasaray–Leeds match, not Arsenal's defeat of Lens. You can include the Arsenal result afterwards.
"Arsenal made it to the final in uncontroversial fashion by defeating French club Lens in their semi-final", I understand the point you want to make, but every match can be controversial. They all have a 'talking point' – something which fans agree/disagree about. I'm sure it wasn't controversial in the sense of fans fighting each other, but Lens or Arsenal may have felt aggrieved about a penalty decision, a booking, et al. The bit in bold isn't needed, so what I would suggest is for you to remove it. You need to add a reference to confirm Arsenal's passage to the final.
The sentence "There were reports that a Galatasaray fan had run to a telephone to call for support when he saw Leeds fans arriving, where several Galatasaray fans entered the area shortly afterwards which precipitated a fight between the two sets of supporters which led to the two Leeds fans being stabbed", reads long and could be cut down to two.
"Police arrested Ali Umit Demir and three other men for the stabbings", the source however uses his short name, Ali Demir.
"As a result of the stabbings, Leeds United banned Galatasaray fans from attending the second leg at Elland Road claiming that the safety of fans could not be guaranteed", how about "As a result of the stabbings, Leeds United banned Galatasaray fans from attending the second leg at Elland Road; the club claimed that the safety of fans could not be guaranteed"
"On the Wednesday at 1:00, Galatasaray fans attacked a club in Strøget in Copenhagen where Arsenal fans were located", the source you have given doesn't support this.
"4 Britons and 4 Turks" → four Britons and four Turks
"This lasted 20 minutes" - to support the source, rephrase as 'This lasted "for around 20 minutes"'
"lasted for 45 minutes" is not the same as "lasted no more than 45 minutes", which is what the source says. Again, you can quote it.
"6 people were arrested and 3 Metropolitan Police officers were injured", Numbers before 10 should be written out → six and three.
"Nineteen of the arrested were British, thirty-six were Turkish", now when it is numbers after 10, write them out in number form → 19 and 36.
"On the Wednesday at 1:00", 1pm American time? British time? Local time?
The Football Association not the Football Association
"In the United Kingdom, the Daily Mirror ~~newspaper~~"
The Aftermath section is a tad bias towards the British press. More could be included of what the Turkish press had to say about the riots – I know this may be difficult to attain, but it would give the article needed balance. I'll be more than happy to dig around and find some, if requested.
"In August 2000, Arsenal banned thirty-seven people involved in the Copenhagen riot from Arsenal's Highbury stadium", how about "In August 2000, Arsenal banned 37 people involved in the Copenhagen riot from their home stadium, Highbury."
"Piers Morgan apologized for printing the pictures", be consistent with spelling. Much of the article is written in British English, so apologised. Likewise in the lead, criticized → criticised.
The New York Times and Chicago Tribune should be italicised, as they are publications. To do this replace work= parameter with newspaper=
L'Humanité needs a location
What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?

Certain issues with prose ideally should have been dealt when reviewed at GAN, but wasn't. Therefore I'd highly recommend that you get this article copy edited before nominating it for FAC. You need to go over the sources and make sure the material in the article is covered by the sources. Perhaps then get it peered review one last time before sending it over to FAC. Feel free to get back to me if you have any queries or once you have done my suggested steps and need someone to have another look. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. When it comes to the Turkish sources, apart from Huriyet News, I can't seem to find much about the riots in the Turkish press and would be grateful of any assistance you could give me in locating Turkish sources on the subject. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]