Template:Did you know nominations/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots

Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nom at 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Expansion is OK, references are fine. But I see problems. The first hook is invalid, as I've explained in my edit summary here: the source doesn't bear it out. The second hook is problematic as well. The article right now says that the Herd and the Gooners made those calls, but the source says the Gooners called Leeds fans. The source certainly doesn't name the Herd, and it doesn't name the others as groups--it says "troublemakers who follow Leeds, Chelsea, Glasgow Rangers, Cardiff City and Swansea City". That sentence needs to be struck/changed in the article itself, and the hook as it is now cannot stand.

    I made a number of copyedits, and have another comment as well: the lead needs to be expanded to include the relevant points from the article, beyond just one sentence about the very basic facts such as teams and date. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK How about this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But none of the sources (AFAIK--I just looked through references 5 through 9) say that Leeds supporters were involved, only that there was a fear that they might become involved. My question about the lead also still stands. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's try a different tack. How about this one?
  • The source that should support that is this article, which says, "After a weekend of violence in Charleroi and Brussels..." but not Copenhagen, which is mentioned much later on: "Mr Johannson added: 'We cannot forget what happened in Heysel. We cannot ignore the incidents in Istanbul and Copenhagen and what has happened in Charleroi and Brussels.'" In other words, one cannot claim that the Copenhagen riot would have been the efficient cause for such expulsion. My question on the lead still stands, as does my comment about the other groups identified in the article but not in the references. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I'm not that good on elaborating leads beyond the basic facts. Nevertheless, lets just do a basic hook here: The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Is that really a reason to reject it just because the original reviewer pulled out? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No attempts have been made to fix the sourcing issues since before Drmies pulled out. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The sourcing was fine, it was just the wording of the hooks that was the problem which was attempted to be amended with some of the proposed hooks above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And as noted above that has not been dealt with. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The hooks just need review. The previous reviewer offered his hook so it sort of has been dealt with. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg The Alt7 hook is in the article and is supported by the source cited. This is the only hook that I can approve. AGF on the remainder of the review for this nom. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)