Talk:2015 UEFA Champions League final/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article as regards the actual match. I've only one reservation, this about the venue section. I'd like to see some citations in there. If you can please do that, I'll be happy to pass it as a good article. On hold for the present. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boca Jóvenes:

Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boca Jóvenes, I would have expected at least one inline source citation for the first paragraphs under both Juventus and Barcelona. Any possibility those can be supplied before listing? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:

Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: thank you very much for your help. @BlueMoonset: you are right, I missed those but, again thanks to Vaselineeeeeeee, all seems okay now. Thank you, both. I'm going to pass this. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help get this to GA! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report on GA criteria[edit]

Well written:

the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Very well written and no problems.

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Sourcing is good. No problems with original or copying.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Presents a wide view of the event but within a summary style.

Neutral:

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes.

Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No problems.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Some useful images and there seem to be no fair use problems.

This completes the review and the article passes GA. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]