Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

2009 UEFA Champions League Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/2009 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 09:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that, at last, the article finally meets the featured article criteria. I believe that the prose is of a professional standard, written without bias, and that the article neglects no major facts. All claims, even irrefutable ones, are referenced, leading to a total of 200 different citations, all in a consistent style. Since the subject of the article is an event that has now finished, the article should be stable. The lead section summarises the article in appropriate detail, following the structure of the article, which is laid out in appropriate hierarchical style. All non-free images have an appropriate fair-use rationale, and all other images are certifiably free. All images have appropriate captions and alt text, and are positioned appropriately within the article. The only bone of contention, in my opinion, would be the article's length, which some may argue is too great. However, I believe that I have summarised the background to the event in appropriate length without going into too much detail. Obviously all comments will be well-received and I look forward to seeing that little gold star in the top-right corner of this article. – PeeJay 09:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 The image File:Trophy_in_Rome.jpg is a derived work of a 3D artwork taken in a country with no Freedom of panorama, and for me the origin of the license is unclear. Flags should not be used without reason, i find and too similar to be displayed in proximity without supplementary information. Images with faces, such as File:Massimo_Busacca.jpg should look into the text as far as possible. File:Cl2009 logo.png does not d significantly increase my understanding of the topic, nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree about File:Trophy in Rome.jpg; the copyright of the Champions League trophy does not belong to anyone in Italy, and no other element of the photograph is featured enough to be considered the subject of the photograph.
  • As for the flags, I invoke WP:IAR on this matter, as the use of flags is standard practice in football match articles, and and are the reverse of each other so you wouldn't have to have a genius-level IQ to work out that they are different.
  • I respect your opinion regarding the event logo, but I doubt you would say the same about the use of the London 2012 logo in the 2012 Summer Olympics article. I think I'll wait for another opinion before changing that one.
  • Finally, I have now reorganised the images in the pre-match section so that the image of Busacca faces the text. – PeeJay 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with criteria 8 concern on c12009 logo (as pointed out in PR), either we abide by policy or not. I do not doubt that Fasach Nua wd say the same for the 2012 OL. Sandman888 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? What's the difference between adding the non-free 2012 logo to the 2010 Olympics article and adding the non-free Champions League final logo to the Champions League final article? This is a ridiculous concern, IMO. – PeeJay 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • This isn't a FAC for the 2012 OL, but for the 2009 CL final, also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sandman888 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Who said it was an FAC for the 2012 Summer Olympics article? I'm just saying that the logo of the event is an important part of the event, and it's not my fault that Fasach Nua can't see that. Furthermore, the logo is described in the text later on in the article, so it makes perfect sense for the logo itself to be included in an appropriate place in the article, i.e. the infobox. – PeeJay 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sources question: The match report is very vividly written. However, its 87 citations are all to the same source (the DVD commentary). How does this impact on the overall objectivity of the article? I am not making a judgement here, just asking for an opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I hoped the writing would be pretty objective since the commentary on the DVD is from a Barcelona perspective, while I am a Manchester United fan. The references to the DVD were more to cite specific points in the match rather than comments made by the commentators. – PeeJay 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but two external links (http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/noticies/club/temporada08-09/05/n090506104891.html, http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/noticies/futbol/temporada08-09/05/n090522105175.html) are not working. Ucucha 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • These both seem to be working now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • They are indeed; struck. Ucucha 18:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The DVD commentary as a substantial source seems problematic to me. It is said above that "The references to the DVD were more to cite specific points in the match rather than comments made by the commentators". So it's not the commentary as a source, but the visual display of football on the DVD? That would seem to be interpreting the match itself for analytical statements such as "Both teams struggled to put a flowing move together in the opening exchanges". Am I missing something here? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you may have a point there. Since the majority of the match summary is my own analysis of the match, it may count as original research. I had hoped that sourcing my summary directly to the match DVD might allay that worry, but apparently not. – PeeJay 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This has been something I've always been curious about but never bothered pursuing because it exists almost everywhere else. The CIV vs IRL flag issue above makes me feel now may be an appropriate time to bring this up. MOS:FLAG explicitly says "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon". Why are football players and clubs are allowed to violate this rule? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the interests of aesthetics, I believe. Adding the country name in the middle of the team line-ups would look so out of place that I think it's worth invoking WP:IAR here. – PeeJay 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 4; there is unnecessary detail in the Background and Road to Rome sections. I made similar comments at the first FAR of 2007 UEFA Champions League Final and after Talk page discussion changed the article accordingly. I see that there has since been second FAR of the same article where the original editors have wanted to go back what I see as the bloated version. Could somebody new offer an opinion? To my mind, there is no point in putting in prose form that which can more succintly be stated in table form; and the details of the earlier matches belong in the article about the earlier matches, not the article about the final. The same is true for information about the history of the stadium where the match was held. A match program, or newspaper souvenir supplement, will include all these extra bells and whistles to pad out the copy; but Wikipedia has wikilinks which you can follow if you want that kind of extra information. It should not cram everything into one article, and so all that padding should be trimmed out and left in the other articles where it is more relevant. I think we all agree on Summary Style as a principle; what it comes down to is, how much detail of the earlier matches is relevant to the final? My answer is, not much; the opinion of PeeJay and the other editors (who I acknowledge actually do the hard work) is, quite a lot. It would be nice if some other Wikipedians could offer a third opinion. There is an empty style-guide page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Matches; I suggest that this be fleshed out (with input from non-Football editors) to facilitate future FACs. jnestorius^(talk) 13:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – I completely agree with Mkativerata regarding the use of a TV broadcast to source all of the match details. This makes any interpretive statements like "With half-time fast approaching, Barcelona's confidence began to show" veer into original research territory, as the nominator says. With that in mind, I can't make a strong argument that this meets FA criteria at this time. There are undoubtedly numerous match recaps avaliable from reliable sources, not to mention live blogs and the like from media members, so it's certainly possible to create an extensive summary of any major modern match without much, if any, use of a broadcast or similar primary source. If this does wind up archived, that would be one way of preparing for a future re-nomination. (P.S. – I disagree with the reviewer above that all background text should be removed; if there were no prose on the background, I wouldn't consider the article comprehensive. If it needs trimming, and I haven't looked at the sections closely enough to opine on whether it does, that is a seperate matter.) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't intend to say that all background should be eliminated, merely that the selection should be more judicious. Prose which explains and establishes the context must of course be retained. But I don't think for example that we need to know, in the article about the final, who Barcelona might have drawn, but didn't, in the group stages. It's appropriate to say that a team was nearly eliminated in an earlier round, but the names of the players who hit the bar or the referee who decided stoppage time can be delegated to the article which discusses the relevant match. jnestorius^(talk) 08:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.