Talk:2005 UEFA Super Cup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I have copy-edited some parts of this to tidy up the prose (please revert anything that does not work), but there are a few issues. On the surface, it is a good piece of work, but there are a few problems lurking. Many of these are to do with referencing, and the refs do not always support the text as written. Some sentences are unreffed at all. This is the biggest hurdle, but I think it is a simple case of mixed up references as all the information seems to be in the sources. Another problem, although easier to sort, is that the prose of the match report is quite messy and hard to follow in places. I began to tidy it up, but I think the nominator should have a look. With this in mind, I am placing the article on hold for now for seven days.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Background

• "It would be Liverpool's fifth appearance in the Super Cup." Not covered by the reference.
• "They had previously won the competition in 1977 and 2001 beating Hamburg and Bayern Munich respectively." The ref given supports three total wins, but not the opponent. However, ref 3 supports all of this. Maybe swap around? And is RSSSF a reliable source?

Its three total wins because they won this match to make it three, if I remove ref 2 then all after ref 1 should be covered by ref 3 NapHit (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, CSKA Moscow were in the middle of their domestic season. Unlike the other major European leagues the Russian league runs from March to October, to avoid playing in the harsh winters that occur in Russia." Needs a ref.
• I took out the line about both teams being determined to win (I can't see that they wanted to lose!), but it may be worth changing this to say that they valued the competition, or that some commentators were dismissive of its importance. This would be supported by ref 7.
• It never actually says that Gerrard missed the game.

Slightly confused here are you talking about the ref or the prose? NapHit (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the prose. Ref is fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary

• Ref 8 does not say who set up the shots that the Liverpool player missed. I think it's a simple case of mixed up refs.
  • Still not covered by a ref. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• "In the 24th minute García found 25 yards from goal Fernando Morientes with a pass though his shot was easily saved by Akinfeev." I can't quite make sense of this.
• "scored from a tight angle" not supported by ref.
• "Liverpool took until the 36th minute to respond with García and Steve Finnan having chances however they both failed to score." Not supported by ref, and "respond" suggests Liverpool scored.
• "Two minutes later Josemi had a chance to score, but his shot from the edge of the penalty area went over the crossbar." No ref.
  • The new ref supports Josemi having a chance, but not where from or where it went. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Summary: Hmmm. I have some major issues about this whole section. I began trying to copy edit it, but there is just too much to do in this section, and the same problems keep recurring. Many parts are unreferenced, or referenced to the wrong place, particularly chances falling to players. The prose is choppy, with lots of repetition of "After XX minutes" or "X minutes latex" which is very hard to read. This all needs checking and tidying before the article can be passed.
• There are also parts which are hard to understand, such as "Four minutes later CSKA striker Vagner Love approached the Liverpool goal, for a moment Reina and Sami Hyypiä nearly contrived to present a goal to CSKA" I suspect it may be paraphrasing gone a little wrong.
• "The pass is cleared by CSKA defender Sergei Ignashevich but it ricochets off Cissé and leaves him with an open goal after Akinfeev had come off his line in an attempt to clear the ball": this is in the present tense. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Nearly there. The edits have largely sorted the prose issues, but there are still parts of the section where the reference does not support the text. As well as the remaining unstruck examples, I found:

• After just over an hour's play a mix-up between Reina and Sami Hyypiä nearly contrived to present a goal to CSKA, before Hyypiä intervened to clear the ball.
• Vagner Love had a chance to extend CSKA's lead in the 77th minute, but he was unable to control the ball after a high pass and lost possession.
• With two minutes of the half remaining the ball was played into the centre of the CSKA half, Ignashevich misjudged the flight of the ball and it went over his head and fell to Cissé. His shot was saved by Akinfeev but the ball rebounded to Cissé and who put it into the open goal to give Liverpool a 2–1 lead.
  • Still no ref, but fixed it myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• (cross) from the right-wing --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• It would also be good to add some analysis to the match report rather than just bare facts. I notice that the BBC report talks about Liverpool's poor start, and Moscow playing negatively and being punished for it. I think these would make good additions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Post match: I'm really not sure about this section. It is entirely reproducing the quotes from a website given by several people after the match. Is it all necessary to include? At the very least I would like to see some cuts and much more paraphrasing of their words. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Not much has changed here; in fact it seems to have got longer. I would replace some of the quotation with a paraphrase; you did so with the Moscow manager, but left in most of his interview. Having said he rued the injuries, you could cut all mention of injuries from the quote. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is where we are:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Summary section still needs work to tidy it up; I did what I could, but there was too much to do. Prose now seems much better in that section (although I will have a last check through once everything else is completed.)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references do not always support the text and some facts are unreferenced. All good now.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Slight change of mind here. The sources provide some analysis of the play, and I think this could be added to the article, rather than just straight factual reporting. Much better now with some analysis, well done.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article still needs some work, but there is no reason it should not be able to pass quite quickly. I will place it on hold for an initial seven days.All good now.

--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think I've addressed all your comments, tidied up the summary section and tried to limit the use of the minute repetition. I've also improved the post-match section, paraphrasing the quotes. NapHit (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Better, but still problems with referencing and one other point on analysing the match a little more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok think I've got everything now. NapHit (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done, everything is now top-notch. I think this is as comprehensive an account of the match as it is possible to have. Well done collating all the references. And thanks for sticking at it. I'm delighted to pass it now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)