Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 UEFA Europa League Final/archive1

2011 UEFA Europa League Final

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to have this article in proper conditions to undergo a FAC nomination with the least amount of work (and worries) possible. Any type of comments/suggestions on any section is more than welcome.

Thanks, Parutakupiu (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Firstly I don't think this is article for FAC just yet I would advise you take it take to GAC firstly, as I feel a review would bring it closer to featured standard its just not there yet unfortunately.
• The main area that sticks out is the summary section, considering the article is about the match the section is extremely short compared to the background section. Have a look at 1956 FA Cup Final which is a featured article to get a feel for what the article should look like.
• The lead could be more developed, more could be made of the match, the leadup to the final. Also if something is referenced later on in the article it does not need to be referenced in the lead.
• "Having 47.4 km (29.5 mi) separating the cities..." change to The separation of 47.4 km (29.5 mi) between the two cities
• "an historical second place" why was it historical readers will want to know why its classed as historical, make it clear
• "Breen stated that "Irish football fans have travelled the world supporting the Republic of Ireland but this is the first time that an event like this has come to our shores and this will be a major occasion for the city". quotes need a reference
• The match summary is not very encyclopaedic this needs to be rectified again I would look at other final articles that are Good and Featured articles to get an idea of how the section should read.
• A post-match section detailing the reaction of the players and staff and other post-match events should also be included
• Seem to be a few typos and missing words throughout the article which need to be fixed.

Hope this helps. NapHit (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, NapHit. Your comments helped a lot... to see how basic this article is in comparison with that FA Cup one – from a completely different league! It will be very hard to match the prose and content. As for the match summary I will need some help because "football language" is not something I handle well, being a non-English native speaker. Meanwhile, I will fix those "minor" items you pointed out. Parutakupiu (talk)

Comments by Oldelpaso

I agree with everything NapHit says above, some additional comments:

• As well as the Featured example above, you might want to look at two current GAs which are about the same competition: 2001 UEFA Cup Final and 2002 UEFA Cup Final.
• The Route to the final section needs some prose, not just a table.
• The visual identity subsection comes across to me as PR fluff, it doesn't really increase the understanding of the reader.
• There's an overreliance on UEFA.com for references. There's nothing wrong with using it as a source, but if you want to get to FA, the criteria call for a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. For example, what was the reaction in Portugal to an all-Portuguese final? Presumably the likes of A Bola and O Jogo covered the match extensively.
• This might just be personal preference, but I don't think its necessary to put quite so much about the background of Ronnie Whelan or the ref. A sentence or so on each would suffice. What might be a useful addition to the officials section is a brief explanation of the use of goal-line officials in this season's European competitions.
• Porto were strong favourites going into the match, there should be a (well-sourced) explanation of this somewhere.
• As part of a post-match section, there ought to be some context about Porto's season as a whole, and Villas-Boas winning the treble in his first season.
• It'd be worth searching on Flickr to see if there are any suitably licensed photos of the match.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for your comments, Oldelpaso. I now see how this article is still under par to what a FA demands. I'll integrate all your suggestions into my overhaul scheme. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)