Talk:Hibernian F.C. in European football/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 07:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take this one. First question, why do you consider this an article rather than a list? From a cursory glance, I’d have expected this to be at FLC. Courcelles (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Celtic F.C. in European football was a good article and thought I could improve this similar article to the same level. Per WP:FOOTY, there is some inconsistency in how some of the other "European football" articles are treated. Arsenal (GA), Benfica (GA) and Liverpool (FA) are articles, while Malmo and Rosenborg are featured lists. I have no preference. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing this one as an FL, due to the ratio of tables to prose, but I'm going to go ahead and review it now. Courcelles (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I presume everything in the lead is covered elsewhere, so you can lose the lead citations~~
~~Lead needs expanding, could be 2 nice paragraphs at least~~
~~"where they achieved a fine" is a little informal~~
So is the constant use of "Hibs"
~~The Intertoto Cup is discontinued, IIRC? Might be worth a mention~~
~~Add a key to the tables, so people don't have to guess what all " Pld W D L GF GA GD Win%" mean~~
The File:Symbol delete vote.svg and it's opposite will not meet MOS:ACCESS and will get you dinged at FLC. The use of a word would be much better
What makes SPL Stats an RS, it looks like someone's blog?
Same question but regarding FitbaStats.

Site has been going since 2010 and I find it to be a superb reference for Scottish football stats. One of the co-founders (Bobby Sinnet) also is the author of two published books about Hibernian F.C. ShugSty (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 20, no shouting, even if it's a cut and paste thing~~
The EL strikes me as a perfectly reliable source that could be integrated into writing the article.
Row/column scopes are fine (I'm now into FLC territory)
Check your sorting on the Round column, it should likely sort 1QR, then 2QR, then 3QR, and only then R1...
Opponent is sorting by nationality, rather than by club name.

Some of these are FLC, rather than GAN requirements, but I thought it best to list them all out, as this is worthy of being featured with a little spit and polish. Courcelles (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watch this page, but haven't contributed much to it other than a results table last year. I can certainly vouch for FitbaStats as reliable, it's not much to look at but very detailed and accurate, particularly in respect of the 'featured teams' for which I presume the contributors have a personal affection - Hibs are one of these. SPL Stats is a bit ropey in that regard, but the ref says the content was written for a Motherwell match programme, which would mean that the author is trusted and that it was published by a professional organisation. That might all be a lie, but would be a strange thing to falsely brag about, and nothing in the article itself struck me as inaccurate or unsuitable in tone.

The use of Hibs is a debatable one, obviously its not the official name but more than a nickname, it is used extensively even in semi-formal contexts, although its always Hibernian on results lists etc. At present there are 85 uses of 'Hibs' in the text (including ref titles) and 23 'Hibernian's, maybe this could be evened up a bit for variety and to improve the tone, maybe Hibernian in the first use each sentence then Hibs thereafter?

I've taken the liberty of changing every reference to "Hibs" in the first sentence of a paragraph to "Hibernian", whilst leaving all the other "Hibs" unchanged. This revises the Hibernian/ Hibs ratio from 24/86 to 40/71. ShugSty (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly I would just add about the FLC/GAN issue, I got basically the opposite advice last year with Athletic Bilbao - because I had a couple of paragraphs of text in addition to the tables (much less text than on this article), I was advised that there was too much for a FL and I should probably add more and try for GAN. That's not meant as a criticism of what you advised User:Courcelles, just an outline of the judgement of the reviewers as I experienced. It's definitely a grey area.

Anyway, hope this babble was useful in a small way, please give me a buzz User:Jmorrison230582 if you need a hand with anything on this; as a layman, it looks pretty good to me anyway to be fair. Crowsus (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crowsus has covered some of the points well. "SPL Stats" is a blog, but that particular article was published in a Motherwell FC match programme before one of their European games. I have left some of the GA / FLC points until we clarify which we are shooting for. The sorting by nation is deliberate; I think this is more informative. I'm not sure how to fix the round sorting, or even if it is desirable given that the competitions have changed a lot over the years. For instance, Hibs have reached the third qualifying round this year and this is objectively a better run than many of the years where they were knocked out in the first or second "proper" rounds of a competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to what to shoot for, my plan is to pass this as a GA, assuming we can make the right improvements, with a strong recommendation that you take it to FLC, where I would support its promotion. If I thought this was unpassable as a GA, I'd have failed the review by now Courcelles (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Update on progress? Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have missed this comment while I was on a (brief) holiday. I would prefer to proceed with it as a GA. I have added to the text with a brief summary of the 2018/19 entry, now that it is over. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorrison230582 and Courcelles, any update on this review? Just noticed its been on hold for a month and not much has happened in the last two weeks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally done the Hibs situation and tried to sort the rounds around. Animation is developing 08:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look

Looking torwards passing this, I'll give it another read-through now. Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put something more recent than a decade ago in the lead, say somehting about their form 2010-2018.

Added a sentence about their most recent participation (earlier this season).

The first officially sanctioned European club tournament, the European Champion Clubs' Cup, was launched in 1955. " could stand a directly following in-line citation

Added the references used elsewhere for the first participation.

Is the fact that the Fairs Cup was unofficial and not run by UEFA mentioned anywhere in the body?

Added to the first mention of Fairs Cup in the body.

How'd they get into the 72-73 Cup WInners cup if they lost the Scottish Cup?

See below.

"second-half onslaught" is *"where won 3–0 i"not particularly encyclopaedic language.

Used plainer language ("five goals without reply").

"Italian giants Juventus." Same thing here.

Used club instead.

"where won 3–0" missing a word here.

Added "Hibernian".

"This meant that faced " Again

I have rewritten that sentence.

"Hibernian suffered an embarrassing defeat to Swedish club Malmo in the 2013–14 Europa League qualifiers, as they lost 2–0 in Sweden and were then hammered 7–0 at Easter Road." This sentence could be rewritten to a more formal tone.

Rewritten in plainer language ("they lost 7–0", then the context is given by saying it set a Scottish record).

That's all I've got. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at the other stuff, but the text already explains how Hibs qualified for the 1972/73 CWC. If the league champion also won the primary domestic cup (in that case Celtic), the CWC place was passed to the cup runner-up. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any further progress to report? Also, I knew that about the leage champions, but the text isn't explicit enough in spelling that out, I don't think. Courcelles (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made the necessary changes [1]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Umm, are you still checking this. Not Homura (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorrison230582 and Courcelles, I hope you don't mind, but since this review has been open for 5 months and all of the comments have been addressed about 2 months ago, I am going to pass it. I reviewed the article and the comments made, and feel this is now up to GA quality. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]