This nomination is a continuation of the previous one, which was closed prematurely due to my inability to respond to comments as I had been blocked for two weeks. Hopefully that will not be a problem this time. I still believe the article passes all the FA criteria, despite comments at the previous FAC discussion. I was able to respond to all of User:Brianboulton's concerns last time, although he didn't do a full review of the article, and User:EddieHugh's comments were largely based on his opinion of what constitutes "too much detail". I believe the article contains just the right amount of detail on every aspect of the subject; some might say this is too much, but everything included in the article is likely to be something that at least someone reading the article would be looking to find out. Furthermore, everything is adequately sourced, satisfying criterion 1c. – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to oppose at this stage, sorry. Brianboulton's review the first time around said "further copyediting is needed" but this broader copyediting doesn't appear to have taken place. I sampled three sections myself: pre-match, team selection and post-match. There were some prose glitches, which are fixable quickly. But there are some more endemic problems such as inaccurate representation of sources (see the Ferguson and Giggs quotes below), use of sources of dubious reliability (Daily Mail, UEFA), and possible original research (eg "This went against the predictions of some pundits"). The article is certainly a very good one and undoubtedly GA quality. But I think it is falling short of the FA bar and needs a good solid line-by-line review before it is ready. My sample comments:
"There were originally concerns over the players' safety on the new field" - were these concerns legitimate enough to warrant a mention in the article? Is the Daily Mail a reliable source for this purpose?
The Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable newspaper, except when it comes to football. Their sport coverage is remarkably good for a newspaper that routinely comes up with sensationalist headlines. In this case, the quote about the field being unsafe came originally from Sky Sports News, but since I wasn't able to find an archived video of Steve McMahon saying those words on television, I felt the Daily Mail source was adequate. The quote they sourced themselves was from the head groundsman, who merely said there "might be a bit of a bobble". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"based their decision on a number of factors, including stadium capacity, safety and security facilities, and accessibility - might be worth mentioning, as the source does, that "commercial potential" was also a factor. I wonder, too, if sourcing this to UEFA is appropriate. They are hardly likely to admit to any political factors being relevant to its decision...
That's true, but I wasn't able to find any sources criticising UEFA's choice either. Most of the sources were pretty routine in that they simply said "Moscow will host the 2008 final and these are the reasons UEFA gave in their press release". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"In recent years, each Champions League final has been given an identity of its own with a unique logo, design concept, and overall theme inspired by the cultural and historical heritage of the host city." - This is copy-pasted from the source.
Weird, I thought I'd fixed that earlier. Must have been something I meant to do but forgot about. Regardless, it's fixed now. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"As has taken place for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place" - Grating repetition of "took place"
Good spot. Thanks. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"former player and current technical operations director Leonardo" - current is confusing. Does it mean as of 2008 or as of now? Also, this is a massive sentence.
""Midday Champions League Ticket Sales" (Chelsea) is a dead link for me.
Crap. I only added that link in January and it was hard enough to find a source for Chelsea's ticket allocation policy as it was. What can I do? – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"Among the celebrities who did not travel..." - the relevance of this sentence escapes me.
They're famous fans of the two clubs, and in Coe's case, he had a notable reason for missing the final. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Any non-UEFA sources available about the match ball? I'm sure Adidas paid UEFA handsomely to have their ball used, so the use of UEFA sources in this section troubles me a bit.
I'll see what I can find, but most sites that talk about the ball are blogs or photo galleries. I think the small amount of info in this article, plus the fact that I haven't made any claim to the technical qualities of the ball, make it OK to source the info about its design to UEFA. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"As per tradition" - the source doesn't mention this as a tradition. Is it a tradition, a preferred practice, or a rule? Is it necessary to say in the article?
I don't know if it's rule or just coincidence, but every European Cup final has had linesmen/assistant referees from the same country as the lead referee. Either way, I've removed the "as per tradition" bit. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"his only real decision being" - source? I don't think the Guardian article supports this.
"Ferguson predicted that his substitutes might have a big impact on the match" - but his actual quote is "The substitutes you make have got to have an impact, which is why I have to give a lot of consideration to the type of player I want on the bench. If I have to use them I hope they make an impact". This sounds more hopeful than predictive.
Support - It looks good after the last fixes, and it is well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - I cannot say how much I love this article. I'm happy that others have read through it and improvements have been made. This article was the best thing in the topic area months ago and is now even better with the extra eyes and suggestions. I am not fond of the teams but the primary editor did a fantastic job.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - But! There are two pieces of criticism that I wish to discuss firstly...
One - The image of the Statue of Lenin is too dark for my liking (Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about this, especially with the weather as drab and grey as it was). Can anything be done about this?
Two, to me, the imagery throughout the Match summary seems to be slightly biased to Manchester United (ie. Man Utd's "Believe" Tifo, Man Utd in possession, Man Utd on the attack). I get that they won and all, but it was a draw after 120 mins. Perhaps a single image of Chelsea in possession or on a break would do this section some good, I feel. - J man708 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, nothing to be done about the Lenin statue until I can get my hands on a copy of Photoshop to lighten it up a bit (unless someone else can do that). As for the other photos, they were the best ones in the Flickr gallery I found. They're not the clearest, I'll admit, but to balance things out, perhaps the captions need changing? – PeeJay 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"with the PSC-Texture surface innovated": what does this mean?
It's the brand name of the surface texture the ball uses. I've removed it as there's no need for unnecessary brand names. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"Micheľ was supported by assistant referees and a fourth official from the same country; Micheľ's refereeing team was completed by assistants Roman Slysko and Martin Balko, and fourth official Vladimír Hriňák." This seems needlessly wordy; can we compress this to a single sentence and add it to the end of the previous paragraph?
Reworded and added to the previous paragraph. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"vice-captain to the missing Gary Neville": what does this mean?
It means Ryan Giggs was Gary Neville's deputy as club captain, but since Neville was not involved in the game, Giggs took over his role in lifting the trophy with Rio Ferdinand, who was only captain for this match. – PeeJay 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Your rephrasing is certainly better, but what's a club captain? Is that a new role since I used to watch a lot of football? I thought the captain was just the person who wore the armband on the field; is there a separate club captain role nowadays? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The club captain is the club's regular captain, yes, but the team captain is the one who wears the armband on the day. Most of the time they're the same person, but if the club captain misses a lot of games due to injury, there may be a more regular team captain. This is explained best at Captain (association football). – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"deciding over Grant's job within four days after the final": the source is dated 22 May and unless I'm missing something it says nothing about four days.
I don't feel as strongly as EddieHugh, who is opposing because of the level of detail, but I do think some of it could be cut to the article's benefit. I'll watch the discussion in that section.
The last paragraph of the "Background" section is uncited.
Working on it. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The Liverpool-Chelsea picture is clearly not of the game itself; I think it should be cut; or at least provide an accurate caption that explains why there are children on the pitch.
I'm working on replacing the image. Shouldn't be too long. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"Since then, he has refereed 55 Champions League matches": that's as of the date of the source, which is from 2008; I think this needs rephrasing to avoid implying he has refereed 55 CL matches up to now.
As I was mentioned earlier, I respond. I commented last time that, "There is a vast amount of trivia in this article that appears to have been included just because the information is available." I listed examples there, so repeat them here. Perhaps the nominator could comment on why the following fall within the bounds of FA criterion 4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style"... giving details of:
The personal history of the referee.
The referee's personal history goes to the reason for his selection as referee for the match and his pedigree in previous matches involving the two teams is useful. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The big games he was in charge of are relevant, but things such as "in November 1993, he refereed his first international match" and "5–0 win over Brøndby in the group stage" are not. Anyone wanting that level of detail about a referee should go to the article on him (where that info is not found – indicating how unimportant it is). EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
How the ball was unveiled.
It's all part of the ceremony of the match, and that includes the trophy handover. The fact that prominent people were involved is evidence of the magnitude of the game, similar to the guests at the Super Bowl who toss the coin before the game. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The magnitude of the game is self-evident. Tossing a coin has an impact on the match (I see no mention of it in this article, though); who was present when a ball was unveiled, and where it happened, is marketing trivia. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
How many flights were required to get supporters to Russia.
The number of flights shows the popularity of the game since it indicates how many people were willing to travel to Russia. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
But the number of people is stated in the same sentence. Why have an indicator of something when that thing has already been specified? EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The difficulty people face in getting to Russia is well documented, and the fact that the visa requirements were relaxed just so this game could be played is notable. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If so, just state the basic, final, facts; steps along the way are superfluous (and the 6-month detail doesn't appear to be in the source). EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Which people handed over the trophy before the match.
Again, the pedigree of the stadium in being used for UEFA matches and other high-profile games is notable. There's less than a paragraph on the history of the stadium itself, so I don't see why this is a problem. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, anyone who wants that level of detail about a football stadium can read it in the article on that football stadium. It's former name and former capacity, for example, surely had no influence on anything to do with this match. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of pundits had a say before the game on what they thought the teams would be, and the fact that the final sides were different to what was expected is notable. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Name a match when all pundits got everything right. It's inevitable, not notable, given the number of predictions. It's impressive that you or another editor dug out the information, but that's not justification for including it. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Great detail of the clubs' 50-year European history.
Yet again, it goes down to pedigree and the history of the teams' involvement in big matches, as well as the historical significance of playing in the final. It was Chelsea's first and Manchester United's third, as well as being 40 years since their first European Cup win and 50 years since the Munich air disaster. It's all relevant. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly convinced, as a lot of it comes back in later in the article. Most of the detail in "in 2000 when Real Madrid beat fellow Spanish side Valencia 3–0 at the Stade de France; and in 2003, when Italian sides Milan and Juventus played out a 0–0 draw before Milan won 3–2 on penalties" is extraneous, though; why not just "in 2000, when Real Madrid faced fellow Spanish side Valencia; and in 2003, when Italian sides Milan and Juventus played"?
(An extra one) The pitch being 35 cm higher than normal (this is also ambiguous and unsourced). EddieHugh (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That's just an aside. I can't speak to what it actually meant for the pitch to be a foot higher than normal, but the fact that they laid natural grass on top of an artificial surface is interesting. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's an aside. Laying natural grass on artificial grass is interesting, but it's not in the source (assuming it's #53) either; it has "it has now been relaid with turf". EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Another one... "Among the celebrities who did not travel"... a list of people who could have watched the match, but didn't... this is just padding. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And another one (stressing that these are still just examples)... "after he hit a 31-year-old while attempting to drive down Fulham Broadway"... what's the relevance of this level of detail on why someone was arrested in London after the match? EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Other sourcing problems encountered at random: "featured images of the Moscow skyline, as well as the UEFA Champions League logo and trophy rendered in a Russian artistic style, with text in a font similar to Cyrillic script" (I don't see this is the source); "a unique design concept has been developed for each Champions League final since 1997" (not in #54); the Penalty shoot-out section has only one source, which covers part of one sentence; the first 2.5 sentences of the Post-match section are unsourced; "around 6,000 police were on duty" ("5,000" in source). EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Closing comment -- I don't think we're going to resolve the objections here any time soon, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)