We ask for two mutually independent sources for the focal event. It looks like really only one of these sources talks about this game at all.
I did try to verify, here, and was left with a number of things I couldn't find: the whole sentence about the first leg; the sentence that starts "For the majority of the match" (that's bordering on analysis; it might be possible to verify somehow, but tbh I'd need some guidance, perhaps in the form of helpful remarks left on the article's collaboration page); did Hart make two critical saves against Rinaldo in the second half (I wasn't entirely sure how to read the text here, and then looked at the source and had trouble deciphering it, too; and I couldn't find the attendance figure (if that's around somewhere, again, well-chosen remarks on the collaboration page to help the reviewer with where to find stuff can be quite effective).
We're nearing the end of the third day after the event. :S
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
We ask for two mutually independent sources for the focal event. It looks like really only one of these sources talks about this game at all.
I did try to verify, here, and was left with a number of things I couldn't find: the whole sentence about the first leg; the sentence that starts "For the majority of the match" (that's bordering on analysis; it might be possible to verify somehow, but tbh I'd need some guidance, perhaps in the form of helpful remarks left on the article's collaboration page); did Hart make two critical saves against Rinaldo in the second half (I wasn't entirely sure how to read the text here, and then looked at the source and had trouble deciphering it, too; and I couldn't find the attendance figure (if that's around somewhere, again, well-chosen remarks on the collaboration page to help the reviewer with where to find stuff can be quite effective).
We're nearing the end of the third day after the event. :S
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Hi. I added some sources to better reflect the events of the game. The third source is where I got the information about Real Madrid being in their 27th semi-final as well as Manchester City being in only their first. The updated sources and statistics from the game do show that for most of the game Real Madrid were on top. The attendance figure can be found in the form of a PDF from the first source on the bottom right-hand side of the page under Full-time report in the Press Kits. I hope that helps. --Handraulic (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I knew about the 27th/1st stuff; it was no problem. The first-leg stuff I didn't have, and still don't see (which will mean cutting it, at this point). I should have thought of the press kit; checking that now. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I finally found the link on the UEFA source to their coverage of the first leg, from which I got that whole sentence verified (barring the tiny detail about what to call the stadium, but we also tend to go for common names in preference to artificially sponsor-oriented ones). The attendance figure was right where you said. The question of how many saves against home Hart made in the second half, and in what order, was becoming quite complicated and hard to sort.
The separate article about the first leg should probably have been listed as a separate source; that's better documentation of where stuff came from and would have been easy to verify in review. The separate page for the attendance probably wouldn't need a separate citation since it's apparently an adjunct to the article, but as noted, a friendly note on the collaboration page was called for.
That one big sentence about threat and such was straying toward the subjective side; summary tends to be hard (sometimes impossible) to do neutrally. I also had real trouble trying to use source-check on it, because (not being an expert) it'd be a practical impossibility for me to go through the entire blow-by-blow account of one of those games and get an overall picture of what was going on. I cut back a lot on the sentence, which greatly simplified the problem of verifying it; the Guardian did make a remark about threat, and the statistics on total attempts, and attempts on target, broken down by first and second half, do help to give an overall sense.
It should be easier to produce neutral, accurate, verifiable news writing by focusing on objective facts — such as those attempts/attempts-on-target stats, yellow cards, and such — rather than trying to "summarize" and creating potential difficulties with both neutrality and verifiability. A good choice of objective facts can paint a picture for the user of the more subjective aspects of what went on.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
I finally found the link on the UEFA source to their coverage of the first leg, from which I got that whole sentence verified (barring the tiny detail about what to call the stadium, but we also tend to go for common names in preference to artificially sponsor-oriented ones). The attendance figure was right where you said. The question of how many saves against home Hart made in the second half, and in what order, was becoming quite complicated and hard to sort.
The separate article about the first leg should probably have been listed as a separate source; that's better documentation of where stuff came from and would have been easy to verify in review. The separate page for the attendance probably wouldn't need a separate citation since it's apparently an adjunct to the article, but as noted, a friendly note on the collaboration page was called for.
That one big sentence about threat and such was straying toward the subjective side; summary tends to be hard (sometimes impossible) to do neutrally. I also had real trouble trying to use source-check on it, because (not being an expert) it'd be a practical impossibility for me to go through the entire blow-by-blow account of one of those games and get an overall picture of what was going on. I cut back a lot on the sentence, which greatly simplified the problem of verifying it; the Guardian did make a remark about threat, and the statistics on total attempts, and attempts on target, broken down by first and second half, do help to give an overall sense.
It should be easier to produce neutral, accurate, verifiable news writing by focusing on objective facts — such as those attempts/attempts-on-target stats, yellow cards, and such — rather than trying to "summarize" and creating potential difficulties with both neutrality and verifiability. A good choice of objective facts can paint a picture for the user of the more subjective aspects of what went on.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Done --Pi zero (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)