Talk:2006 UEFA Champions League final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be reviewing this article, although I won't be able to go through the whole thing at once. I'll leave comments as I go and will place the nomination on hold for one week once the full review has been completed. Please feel free to address any concerns at any time, however (there is no need to wait for the full review).

Lead section:

• Repetition of "2005–06 UEFA Champions League". Could the second one be shortened to "league champion" or something along those lines?
• "won all their ties" - what is a tie?
• It might help if the acronym UEFA could be explained at some point. For example, "the final association football match of the 2005–06 Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Champions League"

I think this would only confuse people more the competition is called the "UEFA Champions League" to spell out the acorynm would cause confusion. I've addressed all comments in this section. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Route to the final:

• A bit of jargon, but the wikilinks help. Does the "ties" in "knockout ties" refer to matches, as before, or matches in which the score is even (draws)?

Changed to matches. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Build-up:

• Much of the first paragraph seems unnecessary. In particular, I don't see what the awarding of the next year's final has to do with this article.

It shows how the final came to be held in Paris, and the history surrounding the competition and the city, removed the bit about next year's final. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I found the first paragraph a little confusing. Discussing the football history of two French stadiums leaves it a little unclear as to where this final was to take place. I also thought "awarded the right to host the final" would be more clear than "awarded the final".

It is made clear in the first sentence where the final is held, and I changed the wording like you advised. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence about 1.2 million people and the bus tour is almost word-for-word from the original source and needs to be rephrased.
• Words like "coincidentally" are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia.

removed NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused. The second paragraph says that Arsenal played in the final six years earlier. The third paragraph says that 2006 was their first final. Are these different finals? Without a strong knowledge of football, this isn't clear.

Yeh their different competitions it does say "UEFA Cup Final" whereas the name of the article is "UEFA Champions League Final". NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "regarded as favourites" and "regarded as being the best side on the continent" - by whom? This needs some clarification, per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

this s referenced. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "necessitating the need" - should be rephrased. Perhaps "creating the need"?

changed 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary:

• The sentence about Messi seems redundant, as the same information was given at the end of the previous section. Could it be removed or shortened?

I think it needs to be included it confirms he didn't feature, whereas the other sentence confirms he was in the squad. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But both sentences confirm he was in the squad. This isn't a huge deal, but it seems unnecessary. If you want it left, I can live with that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• "who subsequently shot wide of the goal" - can the name of the player who took the shot be given, as this is awkward phrasing?

added player 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Arsenal subsequently substituted Robert Pirès for Manuel Almunia, Arsenal's substitute goalkeeper" - this seems strange, as they don't play the same (or even a similiar position). I'm assuming that Arsenal was down by one man and had to take one of their other players off to get a new goalkeeper into the game, but this took a while for me to figure out.

Yes Arsenal had a player sent off, I don't think I can make it any clearer than as it stands. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "who was accused of diving" - by whom? If the referee awarded the kick to Arsenal, I assume the accusation didn't come from the referee.

changed wording NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the injured Edmílson" - when was he injured?

added when he was injured NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "striker Henrik Larsson, who was featuring in his last game for the club" - that has already been said in this section.

removed phrase. 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "who put Eto'o through to equalise for Barcelona" - I'm not sure what this means.

made it clearer

• "Barca" - is seems strange to refer to them this way, as they have been called Barcelona throughout the article.

changed to Barcelona NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the 25 August 2006" - this date format is inconsistent with "May 17, 2006" in the lead section.

I've changed the date formats so they are consistent with the August example 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Their victory meant they would also participate in the FIFA Club World Cup." - is "their" referring to Barcelona or Sevilla? I assume Barcelona, but Sevilla was the last team discussed before this sentence.

Changed their to Barcelona NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The section seems a little short. Reading at http://aculturedleftfoot.wordpress.com/page/140/, there seem to have been a few more important and/or controversial moments that could be included. I don't know that the source I mentioned would be considered reliable, but it was the first thing I came across.

Not sure what else could be included, most of the action is there, and that source would not be considered reliable. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since it seems to be the most discussed moment of the game, perhaps a little more about Lehmann's foul would be helpful.

Not much else that can be added, there is more in the post match section. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-match:

• "whom he had linked with a move to" - confusing phrasing

fixed NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "19 May" - date format needs to be consistent.

changed NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Again, from the source I mentioned in the last section, there seem to have been a few things said after the game that don't get mentioned here.

Not sure what else could be added I put most of the reaction from the sources I found in there. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

References:

• All seem fine and up-to-date.

Images:

• The infobox image is too large to qualify for a fair-use claim. It needs to be replaced with a smaller version.

I don't have the tools to make this image smaller unfortunately, if you know someone that could change this I would be grateful. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing that stands out, as with the previous reviews, is that there is more information given about the build-up than there is about the match itself. One thing I would definitely like to see, though, are subsections for the first and second halves (see 2007 UEFA Champions League Final as an example). GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't include the sub sections because two recently promoted match articles: 1923 FA Cup Final and 1956 FA Cup Final did not use them. NapHit (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed this nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed all your comments, thanks for the review. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-review A week has passed, and the edit war is clearly over. It's unfortunate that it had to hold up the review, but I see no current problems with stability.

Although the article would benefit from more detail, there is sufficient detail given for a GA pass. If it goes to an FA candidacy, reviewers might ask for more information to be added. There are also a couple of minor details that won't hold up the review (I think that acronyms should always be spelled out the first time; you disagree in this case and make a good point...I think saying twice that Messi was part of the squad isn't necessary, but you prefer your phrasing). Both of these are personal preferences, and I won't push for mine over yours, as they are not essential. There are two remaining points, however, that need to be addressed before the article can be passed:

1. From the Build-Up section, the statements about favorites are not referenced. The first ("Barcelona were regarded as favourites") does not appear in the source given (reference 14), and the second ("They were regarded as being the best side on the continent") is not stated in the source given — it only says that they were considered favorites to win. In addition, neither indicates who considered them favorites.
2. The infobox image is still too large, and the article cannot be promoted until a smaller one is uploaded. My current computer doesn't have a program (like Photoshop) to fix it, so I'm sorry that I can't help. Perhaps someone from the football project is able to do this (someone who uploaded images to other UEFA Champions League Final articles, perhaps? if not, someone at the help desk might be able to point you in the right direction). Basically, the current image needs to be saved, opened in a program like photoshop, and then saved in a smaller format.

If you could address these when you have a chance, I will promote the article. Thanks for your hard work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gary thanks for being patient over the dit war issue, I ave addressed your comments. I have removed the image for the time being and have asked someone if they can reduce it to an allowable size, so hopefully it will be fixed soon. Cheers NapHit (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the image's size. I only hope I've reduced it by enough. – PeeJay 14:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It could still be reduced, but the dimensions are considerably smaller than before. Wikipedia doesn't give a firm limit (that I can find), but asks instead, "Is the material in a lower resolution that would be unlikely to impact the copyright owners ability to resell or otherwise profit from the work?" I believe that the answer is yes. If it is a low resolution image, however, the image file File:2006 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg should reflect this (where it asks "Low resolution?" in the rationale template, the answer should be yes (or, probably more appropriately, "The image is of a much lower resolution than the original and does not impact the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work."). If you could do this when you have a chance, I believe that is everything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Added the description to the image, cheers PeeJay and Gary for your help. NapHit (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have promoted the article. Thanks for the quick replies to my concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)