Talk:2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 08:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review the article over the course of the day, I'll probably make several revisions to this page before complete but I will send you a message once complete. Thanks for your work on the article so far, it looks in good shape. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• When using the linebreak <br>, could you close it by adding a backslash? Eg- <br/>. For editors who use the syntax highligter, the entire article is highlighted in pink because the tag linebreak is open. When it's closed, it highlights normally.
• Per MOS:NUMNOTES, comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures so I'd write Fifth (or Fifth place) and Third round in the infobox rather than 5th and 3rd round. In any case, the styles shouldn't be mixed.
• Liverpool finished fourth in the previous Premier League season. However, they were unable to improve on this position - I have no issue with the comparison however, I feel it would be better to switch it round as this is the 04-05 season. So, say they finished 5th first and then say it wasn't as good as the previous season.
• I'm unsure why the third paragraph has been included in the lead. It provides unnecessary detail for the lead and is WP:UNDUE given that the most prominent thing about this season was the Champions League win. I always point to 2015–16 York City F.C. season as an example of good practice for club season articles and this lead is very similar apart from the third paragraph. Consider if there is anything else within that lead that might be worth adopting here if you feel it would be too short without the third paragraph.
  • No problem, I think the lead works fine without it. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Per WP:ACMILAN, the first reference of AC Milan in the lead and body should say AC Milan and not just Milan.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• • Should have got everything in this section. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Background

• I wonder if a {{See also}} or {{Main article}} linking to the 03-04 season would be more appropriate? You've linked it in the first sentence anyway so it's not a major issue.
  • I can add the see also, but as it's in the first sentence not sure it's necessary. I could always add the see also and take the text link out? NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Up to you. My preference would be {{See also}} or {{Main article}} just because I like that style but I think, overall it will make little difference. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• There isn't a source for the 03-04 Premier League outcome.
• What were the circumstances of Houllier's departure? The managerial change is very relevant for the background section.
• Could we add prose outlining the four preseason friendlies? Might be worth linking to the ChampionsWorld Series article as well. The date for the Roma game in the table is incorrect.
• I'm a little confused with the Antonio Núñez transfer. The prose makes it seem quite simple but the tables suggest Liverpool paid for him separately. Sorry if I've misunderstood but clarification would be helpful.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Check the anchors on links, both the 03-04 UEFA Cup and FA Cup links don't go to the section you're aiming for.
• January transfers shouldn't be mentioned in the background as they happened during the season. The background section should only contain relevant information/events up until the first competitive fixture of the season.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Spot check on source 21- total winter transfer income is listed at £12 million but the only player to leave in January 2005 was Henchoz on a free so this table is incorrect.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• • Ok, done everything in this section bar more on Houllier's departure and the Nunez transfer. I've moved the January transfers to the league section. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Premier League

• A Mikaël Silvestre opened the scoring for United in the 20th minute - Doesn't quite make sense, either remove the "A" or add "goal" after Silvestre.
• Captain Gerrard went off with injury after 40 minutes - grammar, either "went off with an injury" or "went off injured".
• with a further goal from Silvestre secured a 2–1 win for United - tense, either "and a further goal from Silvestre secured a 2–1 win" or "with a further goal from Silvestre securing a 2–1 win".
• but an goal by Zat Knight - own has been missed out.
• The phrase "next match" is used 18 times in this section and secure(d) is used 19 times. It reads easier if you vary the word choice, it's very repetitive otherwise. That doesn't mean you can't use the same phrase more than once, just don't use it too often. You could use words like followed, after, subsequently or just phrase some of the sentences differently. I could see this also being a problem with the other sections so I'll mention it here but consider it when looking back at the other sections as well. Scored is similar, although, I think it's a wee bit harder to vary. Don't say "scored" and "levelled the scores" in the same sentence though, "levelled the match/tie/game" would work better.
• Blackburn took the lead on the stroke of halftime when Brett Emerton after the Liverpool defence failed to clear the ball - doesn't say what Brett Emerton did (I assume scored).
• Liverpool manager Benítez - You've already established he is the manager so it's redundant to say it again.
• Contextual information would be good, ie- where are Liverpool in the league table. Doesn't have to be after every match but it would be helpful for understanding how the results are affecting the table and Liverpool's progress.
• Local rivals Everton were the opposition the following weekend in the 200th Merseyside derby at their home ground, Goodison Park - Sounds like it is the 200th Liverpool-Everton match at Goodison rather than 200th overall. Moving "in the 200th Merseyside derby" to the end of the sentence would clear it up.
• Liverpool players who you have already mentioned don't need to be linked per WP:DUPLINK, just refer to them by their surname.
• A close match saw Liverpool denied a penalty in the first half when Tiago appeared to handle the ball - Did he handle it or didn't he? Avoid expressions of doubt per MOS:WORDSTOWATCH.
• Wes Brown was sent off for two bookable offences in the 64th minute - Implies that both bookable offences were in the 64th minute, use "for a second bookable offence".
• However, they were unable to defeat Blackburn with the match finishing 0–0 and the gap to Everton in fourth place at seven points. - second half of this doesn't quite makes sense. Either say "and that left the gap to Everton in fourth place at seven points" or "and the gap to Everton in fourth place was seven points".
• reduce the gap to the rivals - Should be "their rivals".
• when Gerrard scored from 35 yards (32 m) outside the penalty area - implies that Gerrard scored when 53 yards away from the goal (35 yards from the penalty area plus the 18 yards between the edge of the penalty area and the goal).
• Aston Villa were the opponents for Liverpool' final game - Liverpool's
• WP:FOOTY consensus is to not include Results by round tables so that will need to be removed. There have been a few discussions at WT:FOOTY about both results and positions by round tables on club and league season articles including this and this and the consistent outcome is that these tables should not be used. The information is contained within the matches section anyway and you can easily add an extra column to show Liverpool's position in the league table after each game.

Wasn't aware of this, thanks for the links to the discussions. I think I'll add an extra column to the by game table, as it's useful to have the info somewhere. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I also say, your use of tables for match results is excellent. I've seen a few different ways of listing match results in these types of articles and this is one of the best. Unlike the football boxes it actually conforms to the MOS for tables and lists so well done.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not a fan of those boxes at all, which I'm sure fail the MOS. These ones are much better and easier to follow too. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Source 73 is dead. Could an archive link or other source be used?
• I noticed as well that source 74 is Statto which has not been updated for a number of years, I have no issues with the reliability of it but I wonder if a different source could be used.
• It was perhaps the best performance so far because we scored three goals and had many possibilities, I'm a little closer to finding the balance, but I need more time — I cannot say how long, it's impossible to know, what we've seen is a better team — it's a small step, we need to do more. Split this into sentences as it appears in the source. It's fine within the one set of quote marks but it shouldn't be one sentence.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• • I should have done everything in green, and I plan to get to the rest over the next few days when I have a bit more time. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

FA Cup

No comments.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

PS- by that, I mean well done.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• • Thanks! :) NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

League Cup

• Liverpool entered the League Cup in the third round due to them qualifying for European competition, their opponents were Millwall. - Should be a full stop instead of a comma ie- two sentences
• wen to extra-time. Missing a "t" in went
• Where was the final?
• You have numbers in brackets indicating how many goals a player scored in a game in the results table which differs from the Premier League section. I don't think it is needed as people can count to three.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• • All comments should have been addressed in this section. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Champions League

• they needed to play a qualifying round - Doesn't quite make sense, either "play in the qualifying round" or "play a qualifying round tie".
• to ensure progression into the group stages - This sounds like it was their right to be in the group stages, I'd change it to "to reach the group stage" which is more neutral.
• A 1–0 loss against Olympiacos at the Karaiskakis Stadium was the first time Liverpool had lost to Greek opposition. - You've not established that this was the next game which sorta threw me. I'd say "A 1–0 loss against Olympiacos at the Karaiskakis Stadium followed and this was the first time Liverpool had lost to Greek opposition."
• to ensure they progressed - Similar to above, just keep it simple ie- "to progress".
• In the 86th minute, Gerrard's "stunning half-volley, speared majestically from the edge of the area," according to The Guardian secured a 3–1 victory and Liverpool's place in the round of 16 - Doesn't quite read right. I'd tweak it to something like 'In the 86th minute, Gerrard's "stunning half-volley, speared majestically from the edge of the area," according to The Guardian to earn Liverpool a 3–1 victory and a place in the round of 16.'
• Two goals in quick succession in the first half by García, was followed by a goal from Baroš in the second half. - Two goals "were"

followed not "was".

• lost their lives - just "died". I know it sometimes sounds quite blunt but it's accurate. See MOS:EUPHEMISM for more info.
• 0-0 - I know it's in a quote but you should still use an ndash. On another note, that quote is quite long. Is it all necessary? If so, could it be tidied up? It goes Gerard said: "Quote," added Gerrard. We don't need the Gerrard twice unless you break it up in a way like Gerrard said: "Quote." He added/continued: "Quote."
• The match was a close match - as this was the first leg of the Chelsea tie, I would say The first leg was a close match instead of repeating the word match.
• Riise and Baros missed chances for Liverpool - Baroš is missing the correct character at the end. Happens twice in this paragraph.
• The second half was a 'sterile affair' according to BBC Sport with neither side able to score the match finished 0–0 - The clauses in this sentence don't quite flow into each other. I'd suggest either "The second half was a 'sterile affair' according to BBC Sport and, with neither side able to score, the match finished 0–0" or "The second half was a 'sterile affair' according to BBC Sport with neither side able to score as the match finished 0–0".
• Petr Cech - missing the Č in Čech.
• Chelsea manager was critical of the officials following over the Liverpool goal - Who was the Chelsea manager?
• When I arrived here last summer I was intent on winning some trophies, but I do not expect to get to the Champions League final - Do should be did in this quote. If he did say do then you are okay to change it according to the principle of minimal change.
• Šmicer - full name and link at first mention.
• The extra 30 minutes were cagey with Milan having the chance with three minutes left when Andriy Shevchenko had a shot saved by Dudek, who then saved another at point-blank range. - I take it you mean "having the best chance" or "having the chance to win the match".
• Penalty shootout should be all lower case in the middle of a sentence, it would only start with a capital at the beginning of a sentence as it is not a proper noun.
• but Šmicer his penalty - "scored" is missed out
• Would it be worth adding a {{See also}} with a link to 2005 UEFA Champions League final?
  • Alongside the season link? Happy to include it if so NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think it would be worth having it in the prose. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• "I was delighted with the first half, unfortunately the first half and second half were very different. They pressed us back after the break and made it difficult for us to keep the ball. The blow was conceding a goal in the second half," - According to the source, this was said by Benitez, not Gerrard. Only "I'm sure Scott will be disappointed with it but to be fair to him he stopped one in the first half and it was one of the best saves I've seen all season. It means we've got to keep a clean sheet over there, but we won't play for a 0-0 in the second leg. We've got the ability to nick a goal so that will be our game plan and if we keep a clean sheet we're into the last four." was said by Gerrard.
  • I should have got everything in this section. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Squad statistics

Another excellent use of a table btw, good work.

• Players with number struck through and marked † left the club during the playing season. - There are no strikethroughs in the table so I would change this to just "Players marked † left the club during the playing season".

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• • Fixed this. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

There is no aftermath section outlining what happened after the season concluded. Things to mention would be champions league celebrations, the defence of their title and the special dispensation required to do so, a brief summary of the subsequent domestic season, how long would it be until Liverpool won another European trophy.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Plan on getting to this in the next few days. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written on the whole, only minor spelling/grammar to fix
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A couple of words to watch to fix but lead/layout/list incorporation is very well done.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Spot check on references 5, 21, 33, 56, 67, 73, 87 and 113 revealed some issues. I have listed these above.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Different sources may be needed for 73 and 74. Spot check on quotations of 17, 29, 49, 75 and 101 brought up a couple of errors. I have listed these above. I would recommend double checking all other quotes.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It has come up with a possible violation from source 101 which I anticipated after having checked it. If the issues I've raised about it above are addressed, it should be fine. Be careful when adding quotes in future though. Double checked after changes and a couple of quotes are queried as possible copyvios but they are properly attributed so no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the full season well with details of all matches and the outcome of all competitions. Tweaks could be made to the background section as I've mentioned and the article would benefit from an aftermath section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues with neutrality
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent issues. I note there was reluctance to update article from collapsible footballboxes to tables which was done inline with WP:DTT and WP:ACCESS but this was over a year ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged with relevant CC licences.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the article and captions are provided.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall assessment is that the article is almost there. You've done a lot of great work so far and after some modifications, the article will be good to go. Placing on hold to allow for this to happen.

Thank you for all your work so far on this article. If you have any questions about the comments I've made, just ping me here and I'll be happy to answer them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Stevie fae Scotland:, much appreciated. I've actioned most of your comments, I'm planning to get all of them in the next few days and should have let you know above which ones are still outstanding. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, there's no rush. I saw you'd asked a couple of questions above so I've answered them underneath. Ping me again once you're finished and we should be good to go. Thanks, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Stevie fae Scotland, NapHit, where does this review stand? It's been five weeks since this page was edited, and three weeks since the article was edited. How much more is left to do? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been happy to leave things open while NapHit works on it. I've kept an eye on progress but I wanted to give them the space and wait until they were happy that the recommendations I'd made had been actioned. I don't want to speak for NapHit but I don't mind it taking a wee bit longer if they don't have the time to do everything at once particularly as it is not far away. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm travelling around Europe at the moment and had planned to allocate some time to this but haven't got around to it. I have four days where I'm in the same place tomorrow, so I'm going to try and finish it off in the next few days. There are only a few things left to do as far as I'm aware, so it shouldn't take me too long. NapHit (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so it took me a bit longer to get to this than I would have liked, but I think I've got everything on here now. @Stevie fae Scotland: take a look and let me know what you think and thanks for being so patient too. NapHit (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've had a quick read through and, apart from a missed full stop that I've now added, that looks perfect. Thanks again for your work on this. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.