Talk:Juventus FC/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

History

Seems to stop at 1906, with the following section picking the story up again in 1923. Did nothing happen in the years between?

League dominance

"Juventus had a new ground in the form of the Stadio Comunale, but for the rest of the 1930s and the majority of the 1940s they were unable to recapture championship dominance." I'm nor sure what this means. Is this the same stadium that Agnellie built when he took over the club or a different one? Whta does "in the form of" mean? Their new stadium was the same shape as the Stadio Communale?
- Changed - the Stadio Comunale was only built in 1933, so it must have been different to the one Agenlli built, however I don't know what that one was called
"The club added two more scudetto championships to its name ...". Scudetto hasn't been explained.
- Changed

European stage

"... the Old Lady started the decade off well, winning the league title three more times by 1984." The article hasn't yet explained the club's various nicknames, so shoud avoid using them until it has.
- Changed

Recent times

How "recent" is recent? From 2004 to the present? If so, then that's what this section ought to be called.
- Changed

Colours, badge and nicknames

This section is almost entirely uncited. At the very least the material presented in the third and fifth paragraphs needs to be sourced.

Stadia

"In that stage played 890 league matches for 57 years until 1990.[40] Even then continued to train at this stage, until the City of Turin, in 15 July 2003, gave him a royalty-free basis to Turin, giving the same "Delle Alpi" to the company." That just doesn't make any sense. Who is this "him" that was given a "royalty-free basis", whatever that is?

"From 1990 until the 2005–06 season, the Torinese side contested all their home matches at Stadio Delle Alpi, built during the World Cup Italy 1990 ...". It was built during the World Cup?

"In August 2006, the bianconeri returned to play in the Stadio Comunale, now with the stage name of Stadio Olimpico ...". What does "stage name" mean in this context? Temporarily renamed to?

"Naming rights have been snapped up by sports marketing company Sportfive ..." far too tabloid newspaper, need to tone down this down.
- Changed

Supporters and rivalries

"Juventus ultras have good relationships ..." Who or what are "Juventus ultras"?

"The first is with local club Torino, against whom they compete in the Derby della Mole ...". It's not clear who we're talking about here. This is a section about the supporters, so is it the supporters who compete in the Derby della Mole?
- Fixed, by breaking stuff about rivalries out into a separate section

Honours

"... and have the record of consecutive triumphs in football's premier club competition ...". Which competition is this? Needs to be explained.

What's the source of the data for National, European, and World-wide titles?

"Juventus, the only football club in the world to have won all official international cups and championships ...". That's a big claim that needs to be properly cited, yet I don't see that the source provided supports it.

Contribution to the Italian national team

The last half of the first paragraph ("... these successful periods principally have coincided with ...") needs to be cited.

Citations

There are at least five dead links.[1]

All online citations should have a last access date and publisher details.

Some of the citations, such as #11, are links to other wikipedia article, which cannot be considered to be reliable sources.

Some of the sources look a little dubious. What makes soccernet.espn.go.com a reliable source, for instance? Or football.co.uk?
- Just a note, soccernet.espn.go.com is a branch of ESPN, which is a premier sports source in the US. I'll dig up more concrete proof, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need, I'm happy to accept that it's a reliable source if you say so. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now owned by Disney's ESPN network, Soccernet is one of the oldest football news sites on the net; its market worth was something ridiculously high during the dotcom boom. So no problem there, but a number of fansites are used in the article, such as magicajuventus.com and myjuve.it. I've removed/replaced some unreliable sources, but for those that remain I have no quick fix. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't FAC, so it's a matter of balance as far as I'm concerned, depending on how signficant the material is that's being attributed to perhaps less reliable sources than would be acceptable for an FA. I'm really pleased to see editors stepping up to the plate in any event, as it would be a tragedy if this article were to lose its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN is about as reliable as things get for US sports reporting. Oldest and best sports tv channel. And hey, the cover soccer ... (waits for the tomatoes to be thrown ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done respect Honours (correct paragraphs, add FIFA.com, UEFA.com and RSSSF.com ref and fixed dead English links from Lega-Calcio.it changing for the Italian version).--190.232.177.61 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have made a few of the changes requested -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus F.C. is a featured article in it.wiki. Why not traslate that article to improve it? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From a quick look through that article it's very clear that it wouldn't be an FA on the English wikipedia, not even a GA, because of its lack of citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. That article has 164 footnotes, a complete bibliography and videography. Manchester City (FA on en.wiki) have only 47 footnotes and only 2 books as reference, Arsenal FC (another FA) has 95 footnotes...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is certainly wrong, but the issue here is this article, which will be delisted unless it's improved. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen of it.wiki, the house style, for football articles at least, is quite different to that of en:. There might be something to the idea of translating select parts, but not a full-scale port. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the Stadium section. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't said "Translate everything from it.wiki", but is clearly that this article lacks information on some important passages (e.g. "Supporters", "Rivalries", "Players", "Managers" and "Presidents" sections). "History" section and its related article are unbalanced. Also, this article need a section type "in the popular culture" and "in the community" (both avaliable with sources on it.wiki) like in Arsenal F.C. and Chelsea F.C., featured articles and improve a List of Juventus F.C. managers...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few ref changing (goal.com for UEFA.com's notice and deleting juventuz.com, a forum), made a List of Juventus F.C. managers and +info in company's chapter. Also, I changed all "dead" links for active links.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work that's been done here. I'm closing this review now as a keep. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.