Talk:Copa Libertadores/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reso lute 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

(lead) "The six surviving teams join 26 teams in the second stage" - The six surviving teams of what? This is explained later in the article, but is nonsensical in the lead without context.

Fixed

There are peacock terms throughout. i.e.: "demonstrated their magic" (Beginnings) and "Peñarol would defeat River Plate in a dramatic playoff". (beginnings) What was dramatic about this? Check the article throughout for use of such terminology

Fixed

"Independiente would go on to successfully defend the title in 1965;[16] Peñarol would defeat River Plate..." (Beginnings) - In a lot of cases, statements like this can be simplified: "Independiente successfully defended the title in 1965; Peñarol defeated River Plate..."

Fixed

"The playoff match finished in a tense 0–0 tie and was defined in a vibrant penalty shootout, with a highly remembered save by Hugo Gatti on Vanderley in the last penalty." (Argentine decade) - Needs a reference, particularly for the save. "vibrant" is another peacock term.

Fixed

There is mixed reporting of the match scores throughout. In some cases you say a team won "2–1" and in others, "1–2". I would recommend that for consistency you list the winning score first. I am presuming that you are listing the score of the home team first and visitor second, but that is both unnecessary and confusing for a reader such as myself, as Canadian scores would list the visiting team first then the home team.

Unfortunetly, doing that would go against the concensus of most of the world. It is well known that the score is listed with the home team to the left and the visiting team to the right; which saves space and time from listing whenever someone wins at home or away.

"Argentinos Juniors went on to win an unprecedented title by beating America de Cali in the finals via a penalty shootut." (Pacific uprising) - what was so unprecedented about this title?

Fixed

"it proved to be their last hurrah in the international scene as Uruguayan football, in general, suffered a great decadence at the end of the 1980s." (Pacific uprising) - I don't think "decadence" is the word you intend to use here. Do you mean "decline"?

Fixed

"it was the first ever time that no club from Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil managed to reach the final. This trend will continue on until 1992." (Pacific Uprising) - mixed tense. The first sentence is past-tense while the second is present-tense. Change the second sentence to "This trend continued until 1992."

Fixed

"São Paulo beat Newell's Old Boys of Argentina to begin a legacy that established the club as one of the best ever teams of all time." (Renaissance) - this sentence is awkward, and I am not sure what it means. Who says they are one of the best teams of all time? And what is the context? Best Brazilian team of all time? Best South American? Best in the world? Also, you don't begin a "legacy". In North American terms, I think you are trying to call them a "dynasty".

Fixed

"The Copa Libertadores will stay in Brazilian soil for the remaining of the 1990s..." (Renaissance). Wrong tense. The 1990s are in the past, and this sentence needs to reflect that. "The Copa Libertadores stayed on Brazilian soil..."

Fixed

"Vasco da Gama will defeat Barcelona SC with ease to enter in the gallery of champions in 1998." Wrong tense again. Vasco da Gama defeated Barcelona.

Fixed

"However, the Copa Libertadores suffered notably from corruption allegations and accusations of bribery (as well as constant threats to referees, bad organization, increasing stadium violence and low attendances in the early stages of the tournament). South America's biggest stars begun migrating en masse to the more economically-rewarding European leagues depriving the competition of some of its former exposure." (Renaissance) - The statements on corruption and on the competition facing declining exposure due to defections to Europe both requrie references.

Fixed

"...revitalized the club to establish it among the world's best." (Resurgences) - Need reference showing Boca Juniors was considered to be among the world's best.

Fixed

"Boca Juniors will win the 2001 edition after..." Wrong tense again, Boca Juniors won the 2001 edition

Fixed

The phrase "managed to" is overused, and pretty much unnecessary on all counts. "Managed to win" and "managed to defeat" simplfies down to "won" and "defeated". The simpler a statement is, the easier it is to read.

Fixed

Nitpicking

Simple statements do not require multiple references. i.e.: "Estudiantes de La Plata, a modest neighborhood club and a denominated minor team in Argentina, had a style that prioritized athletic preparation and achieving results at all costs." does not require four refs. Too many references stacked like that break the text up and make the article harder to read
alt text should be added to all images

I had problems with people not believing one reference. So I put four.

On the whole, it is a decent article - broad in coverage, neutral, and the history is well balanced. There are a couple statements that require references, and I'd like to see some of those peacock words cleaned up before I can pass it as a GA. As such, I am placing it on hold for now. If you do intend to try for FA again, it will need to be looked at by an experienced copyeditor first. Please leave a message on my talk page when you are ready for me to take a second look. Cheers! Reso lute 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an advocate and will do it anyway, but for future reference is alt text a requirement again? I've taken a four-month break from the main content processes (except DYK), so I'm not really up to date on that kind of thing.

I've got my toe dipped into several things at the moment, but if time isn't a major concern I think I can take this under my wing. Despite being (correctly) indeffed on civility grounds, the nominator was undeniably prolific, and this article deserves to be taken the last few steps. Regards, --W F C-- 02:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not a written requirement so far as I am aware, though it is obviously preferred. I would not hold or fail an article for its lack - I noted that under nitpicking rather than the main review because the history indicated that after two FACs it was probable that a third attempt would eventually be launched. And thanks for picking up the article. I'll be here when it is ready for a second review. Reso lute 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, Jamen. I am not convinced by your explanation on the scoring format however, as I looked over numerous football related FAs and found that they consistently list the winning score first regardless of who the home team was. Keep in mind that articles should be tailored for everyone, and "won 2-1 on the road" is clear to everyone where "won 1-2" is not as obvious in all regions and mixing scores can be confusing. However, I am not going to dig my heels in over that point. There are still a few colourful phrases, but that has been cleaned up, and my concerns about tense and referencing are addressed. As such, I am passing this as a GA. Cheers! Reso lute 00:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]