Talk:Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund

Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 8, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Peter Endrulat never played in the Fußball-Bundesliga again after conceding 12 goals for Borussia Mönchengladbach's record 12–0 league victory over Borussia Dortmund?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Football: Germany Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the German football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is generally fine. My only problem would be starting a sentence with a number; the opening line of the match section. Also I don't like breaking up the texts with the quote boxes, and think the quotes should be used in the flow of prose in the main text. The lead, per WP:LEAD, should not contain facts that are not used elsewhere in the article. The claim that the game is still a Bundesliga record should be in the article; probably in the aftermath section.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Referencing needs to be improved. I've added some tags to claims that need referencing.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This is the main worry for me. The article seems very light on information. For example, the match commentary suddenly jumps from 1–0 to 6–0. How did the game pan out? What was the attitude of the Dortmund team? Did Dortmund create anything? What was the reason for this being such a one-sided affair that led to the record scoreline? Why was Rehhagel sacked? What was the reaction by both coaches' and the media in general? Who made the claims of match-fixing?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Images seem fine.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
My main concern is that the article is nowhere near extensive and broad enough. There is so little information about the match; compare it to other matches that have good or featured status. The lead, while fine length wise now, probably needs to be longer too to summarise all the facts. There are also a lot of statements that need referencing, many of which seem personal opinions or original research, such as "After a shaky start" and "they were highly motivated". At the moment, there's too much work to be done and so I'll have to fail the article. Brad78 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]