Talk:Aberdeen F.C.–Rangers F.C. rivalry

Aberdeen F.C.–Rangers F.C. rivalry has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 7, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Football: Scotland Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Aberdeen F.C.–Rangers F.C. rivalry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 March 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that between 1992 and 2016, Scottish football club Aberdeen did not win a single match at Ibrox Stadium, home of their rivals, Rangers F.C.?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aberdeen F.C.–Rangers F.C. rivalry.

Wikipedia

Hatnotes

I have removed the 'insufficient inline citations' and 'possibly contains original research' flags for now.

When the article was created and assessed seven months ago, it already had 62 inline citations, some referred to several times as appropriate for the words being used. By now it has double that amount (137). If assessors feel certain citations should be more clearly outlined, i.e include a direct quote within the ref, I'll be happy to try and address this, but have decided not to do individually in place of the various multi-cited references on the off-chance that someone might object. If you find a particular issue, please fix it or ask me to do so.

Similarly, if original research is believed to be present at certain points in the text, offending passages can be flagged up and will be better cited or explained, or removed altogether if it can't be resolved. But really it is up to the reader to highlight this specifically, at this point I believe I have demonstrated sufficiently an effort to properly source any potentially contentious or dubious content across the article, plus all the easier-to-prove stuff like stats. Crowsus (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aberdeen F.C.–Rangers F.C. rivalry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I will be reviewing this article and will post my comments soon. RRD (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well written/Broad in Coverage

"From the introduction" - should be "since the introduction". Done ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Reds - using this nickname may cause confusion. Have wiki-linked the The Reds to nicknames section of Aberdeen FC article ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the 1947 League Cup Final won" , "the 1953 Scottish Cup Final won" - the final "was" won I've rephrased this section ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"which though unofficial" - unofficialy Sentence(s)rephrased in this section. ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"They had also contested..." - this sentence is unnecessarily very large and needs to be broken into smaller ones. Rephrased ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"challenge to the Old Firm" - the nickname may create confusion. "Old Firm" highlighted as being Rangers & Celtic earlier in article, and now wiki-linked here ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"under MacLeod" - it is a new section, the person's full name is required. Done ShugSty (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"after beating Rangers 5–1 in the semi-final." - it appears that Aberdeen won the cup via the semifinal victory. Added 'earlier' to make it clear it was not the direct cause of victory. Crowsus (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A maintainence tag has been put, which needs to be addressed. I added more to the lead the same day the tag was added, not sure if this is sufficient, I tend to avoid going into detail here (unlike other sections where I waffle on), if not enough please suggest quick summary details that could be added? Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How the tackle affected Durrant's career must be added (it is given in source only). OK I have expanded on that a bit thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"that was effectively ended " remove was Done thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In the aftermath...." - the reason for the arrests? it was for disorder, have added this detail now. Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"losing both to Celtic.." - loosing woh, no its definitely losing. Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Aberdeen players have been accused" - who has made this accusation. If this is a general trend, then the sentence can be rephrased. one of the refs was from a specific person (Rangers manager) so I've named him, otherwise it is general (I have taken out the word accused as that sounds like a serious matter), I appreciate the wording is slightly WP:WEASEL but I don't think that applies if there are citations to support this general opinion as I have done here...? Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"has also been suggested" - same as the above for suggestion Slightly reworded, problem is its an opinion rather than a fact, I have provided a source with this opinion, my text reflects what's in the ref and it's equally vague about who has said it. Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is this notable fixture made?

RRD (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Added a note above the table explaining this. Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing/Verifiability

*The first part of the Background section needs to be sourced separately instead of general citations at the end.Really not sure what you are meaning here sorry? Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A citation needed tag has been added.Couldn't find this tag? Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) It was me that added this for the sentence "The match was watched by a crowd of 135,000 at Hampden Park, the highest ever attendance for the fixture.[citation needed]" ShugSty (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Great - ta .Crowsus (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref 19 (at the end of first sentence of 1970s battle) is dead.ShugSty has fixed this. Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ref 34 lacks page number. There are 5 citations for this book so I'll add them separately, problem is its from Google Books which doesn't show the page numbers so a URL for each fact may have to do. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Turns out the Google books entry in this instance does have page numbers so I've listed them individually now with the url link in ref section just going to the title page, if you think it would be useful/necessary to create url links for each citation I can do that too...? Crowsus (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref 63 is dead. Replaced, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The facts in the sentence ending with "...match programme, promoting an official apology." are not present in the accompanying sources. these are in the reinstated Independent ref (now #65) Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"closest finish occurring" - more information about the closest finish can be added. OK, added there was one point in it. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Rangers eliminated Aberdeen from the knockout competitions" - Rangers defeated Aberdeen in the final of the cup; eliminated is used when a club defeats another club in some earlier stage. It was the earlier stages, shown by "on their way to winning them" immediately afterwards. Not sure how much clearer I could make this, and to completely reword it seems unnecessary.Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Changed my mind and reworded this to include the competitions concerned but maintain the flow. Crowsus (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In the late 1990s..." the facts stated in this sentence not covered in source. Yep concur. These were the best I could find to show how rotten they became and wasn't sure a wikilink to the stats page was sufficient. They did collapse and it is significant, but had difficulty finding something which expressed that in plain terms. Will have another look. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Have now found another one here (also added into article as ref), pretty basic but covers the point I was making I think Crowsus (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref 80 shows something else. Sorry I have since added more refs so the numbers are skewed. Is this the Winters Tale one? It does mention Dodds. If another, please specify. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) This was the CBC Sports report of the 2000 Cup Final - minor glitch in URL which I've fixed. ShugSty (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Ah OK, possibly one where I changed all the -s to –s and it's caused a problem, sorry to you both for causing that. Should I go through the ones where small dashes are correct (winner–takes–all v winner-takes-all) and change them back? Or does it not really matter as much as 1986–87v 1986-87? Crowsus (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ref 112 is dead. Yeah sorry that's another one where I changed dashes and its broken the URL. Have fixed that one and tonight I'll check all others so hopefully I'll they won't be an issue again. Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"....added a fresh edge to the encounters." - the sentence lacks citation.

RRD (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC) added some new refs from the season expressing the status of the rivalry. Changed fresh to renewed as its much the same as 25 years previously Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ref 59 is dead. Fixed. Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref 49 is dead. Fixed. Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the competitiveness of the previous decades diminished" - this information is not provided in the accompanying source Changed this text to "Although Aberdeen's years of weak performances led to less significance being placed on their meetings in terms of league position", to better explain how the situation changed, an improvement hopefully. Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the ref 39 is dead. Fixed. Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref 147, 148, 166 does not mention the years. Not sure much more is required here, the refs show they were involved with both clubs and the wikilinks to their individual articles shows the years concerned, surely that's sufficient? Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a citation needed tag. RRD (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Refs now added for honours lists on both clubs' official websites (which show the years each trophy was won) . Crowsus (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

"won convincingly by Rangers" - remove convincingly.Fixed by ShugSty. Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"enormous crowd of 135,000" - remove enormous.Fixed by ShugSty. Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"a smaller number of clubs" - what is the need of the word "smaller"?Removed 'smaller'. Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"losing out narrowly" - narrowly should be removed and how it was narrow must be explained.Removed 'narrowly'. Crowsus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"their joyous fans" - remove joyous Changed to celebrating, although I wanted to emphasise that it wasn't an angry riot. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Scottish football's biggest emerging talent" - WP:PEACOCK Not really, I provided a ref supporting that statement and it was widely held, I have removed it but provided yet another ref that actually supports my position that he held that status. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) This comment is an opinion - but a widely held one, and referenced in numerous sources. I've added it back in meantime, albeit slightly rephrased to highlight it as an opinion and a not a solid "FACT" ShugSty (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"bottom of the league..." this statement must be removed. Why? This is not an opinion but a statment of fact, which is correct and relevant to the context as explained in the same sentence. I have adjusted the wikilink to the league table which makes the final league positions of both clubs immediately obvious. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Rangers fans' main focus of enmity.."

WP:CRYSTALBALL; there seems to be some speculation about future. RRD (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Yeah fair enough, it probably will be the case for the foreseeable future but can't be guaranteed, changed will be to has been to reflect the past rivalry instead.. Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other

The article is appropriately illustrated with fair images. Since all the problems have been fixed, I am currently passing the article. RRD (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks very much, really appreciate the effort you put into the process. Crowsus (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead short hatnote

I have removed the 'ead too short' hatnote as I have doubled the size of the intro since the time of it being added (see this edit for comparison), if more is considered needed please advise on what this should contain. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern era?

When is the modern era that is referred to? Since the formation of the SFL's Premier Division? Red Jay (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's it. Had to start it somewhere, and that seemed to work since the start of the Premier division just about coincided with Aberdeen getting stronger and a bit of needle coming in on a regular basis. As the years pass, I guess 'modern' doesn't really ring true as the correct term, I suppose it could be changed to 'Premier Division era' or something if that's the concern ... Crowsus (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I was just wondering, I'm not over concerned, but I think your suggestion would be fine. Red Jay (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]