uefa Euro 2020 Final

This is the English language wiki not an England wiki. The broadcasting section heavily features the UK coverage with a token mention of RAI. As part of countering systematic bias the article should feature every channel, viewership figures, commentator and pundit from each country that broadcast the game. Of course this would bloat the article so I think the entire section should be deleted.

The "notable spectators" section should also go. Why should "person attends football match" be included in an encyclopedia? --Dougal18 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

One negative consequence of this being the English language wiki means that most of the contributors are limited to using sources they can understand, i.e. ones in English, which means coverage will probably show a bias towards the England team. If you can provide sources that go into greater detail about the RAI coverage of the game, that would be great. I disagree that we need to add info about broadcasting in other countries; since the match featured England and Italy, their national broadcasters are the most important ones. Broadcasting in other countries is relatively irrelevant. – PeeJay 19:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is worth mentioning broadcasting/viewership information for the countries of the two finalists, along with global viewership data if available. The broadcasting information on Italy should be expanded, though its lack of current detail does not necessitate the section's removal entirely (WP:DIY also applies). I do not see a major issue with including information on notable spectators at major sporting events (see also 2014 FIFA World Cup Final#Notable spectators), especially dignitaries. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

currently there is basically no context to the section, although England has been one of the most visible teams of Euro doing the BLM knee, and probably the team who got the most vocal backlash. right now the section reads as if the racism came out of nowhere, when in reality it's a lingering problem that, to a certain degree, should have been expected. 2601:602:9200:1310:8D0D:1229:EF80:D043 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:UEFA Euro 2020 Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• "England and Italy" link to teams.
• Delink the second para links as a result.
• "allowing Italy to come back " well, not really, they just did the job, scoring their pens.
• "home soil in 1968" could link the final rather than the overall tournament here.
• " it put them level with France" in what sense?
• "unsuccessful penalty takers" link PK.
• "marred by crowd disorder and incidents of violence" also any thoughts on Covid distribution?
• "UEFA announced" link UEFA.
• "of the tournament" link to UEFA European Championship. Or say it out loud.
• Venue section seems to be suffering from "image sandwiching".
• "three group stage, one round of 16" links?
  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• "The current Wembley Stadium..." see MOS:CURRENT.
• "owned by The Football Association and" the.
• "The original stadium," there's a link for it at Wembley Stadium (1923).
  Already linked further up.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• "excluding 2001 to 2006, when the stadium was being rebuilt" is that sourced?
• "tested for COVID-19 before" late to link Covid.
• "considered two of the favourites..." by?
  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 17 is showing as perm dead.
  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• "the most recent in 2006" -> "most recently in"
• "once on home soil in 1966" remove "on home soil".
• "in 1968 on home soil" likewise, perhaps "as hosts" or something less tabloid.
• "via a golden goal" link.
  Already linked above.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• "to play in a European Championship final on home soil;" again. maybe "as hosts" or "as the host nation".
• "the Azzurri's first" avoid un-explained nicknames.
• "The two teams " which two?
• "Their last meeting" last->most recent.
• "penalty shoot-out" link.
• I think the (H) in the Route... section should say "Co-host" really.
• "as Group J winners" qualifying group.
  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• "an own goal " link.
• "netted two" scored?
• "highly defensive Switzerland with another 3–0 triumph" POV.
  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• " Ciro Immobile netting" link, and enough with the "netting".
• "Having already secured a place in the knockout phase" already said that.
• "heavily rotated squad" jargon.
• "a very motivated and disciplined" according to?
• "for offside in" link.
• "each delivered a goal" scored.
• "Despite substitute" link.
• "successful penalty during" link.
• "topping Group A, winning" qualifying group.
  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• "drawn into Group D ... drawn into Group D " repetitive.
• "England were frustrated by old rivals" POV, "held to a draw" and -old.
• "despite plenty of opportunities to finish the game; despite" despite/despite.
• "would be facing a difficult tie" POV.
• "would be facing ... England faced Germany " repetitive.
• "another chapter in the " whimsical.
• "survived a scare" needs to be less tabloid, more encyc.
• "a historic 2–0 win" according to whom (all of us!!)
• "outplay dark horse" no.
• "netting the others" no.
• "that Jordan Pickford failed" perhaps mention he's the goalkeeper.
• "failed to find another goal" score, not "find".
• "Harry Kane took " there's only one Kane.
• " major tournament since 1966, when they hosted the World Cup" I think we've done this to death by this point.
• "Queen Elizabeth II," -Queen.
  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Pre-match". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Done all. There were some links I shifted since they were already mentioned. Didn't add qualifying group since I think it's already clear when it says "England qualified for the tournament..." Inquired about the (H) situation. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I've done a few of these that weren't done in the first pass, as noted above. The rest have been completed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• "assistant referees" link.
• Explain/link VAR.
• "selected as the video assistant referee for" link it/explain on first use, not here.
• "The match was Kuipers" The 2020 final.
• "Achilles" link.
• "stadium, in block 104, without" is that block info relevant?

Seems to be relevant given this was the block that was infiltrated specifically. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• "19 police officers" avoid starting sentence with numeral.
• Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, there are two there.
• "performers danced to some of Dutch DJ Martin Garrix's hits" danced to music by Dutch DJ..
• "many prominent politician world leaders and famous people" many prominent individuals

Also, what makes the Daily Mirror the best source for Johnson turning up? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I tried looking for different sources and this seems to be the best one available. Daily Mirror is not depreciated after all. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• "forward by passing it around" the ball.
• "wanted a penalty, but" overlinked.
• " the English penalty" England, not English.
• "booked by the referee" link?

Also, is the term "booked" understood by US readers? The article is at penalty card
Yes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Chiesa dribbled " link.
• "Attendance: 67,173[3]" don't need that reference there, it's in the prose.
• UEFA investigation: merge those paras.
• "with COVID-19, with" overlinked.

That's about it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've done most of these, except for the block info, merging the UEFA investigation paragraphs, and the cited attendance in the "details" section. I didn't watch the match or have any interest in it, so it's been an interesting read for me to approach the subject in a neutral manner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There has been a discussion started at WT:FOOTY over this, perhaps people could discuss there (or here) rather than just revert warring. Spike 'em (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The following Wiki Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bukayo Saka 2020 Interview.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

John Murray was the main commentator while Chris Sutton was the co-commentator on bbc 5 live radio for this match. Please mention that. Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this worthy of mention? Spike 'em (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I have seen mentions of BBC and ITV pundits on the page while there is no such information regarding the pundits and commentators of bbc 5 live radio. In my opinion radio media details is as important as tv media details. I think it is worthy of a mention atleast. Not necessarily in detail though. You could just mention the commentary team that's it. Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Is the radio commentary team mentioned in reliable, third-party sources? – PeeJay 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
There is some information about the BBC radio coverage here. --Jameboy (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
That is not a third party source, it is the bbc's own listing. Spike 'em (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
And it doesn't even mention the radio commentary team. Spike 'em (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This one may be better. --Jameboy (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this source is enough to make a mention about radio commentators.
There is a full match commentary of bbc 5 live radio on YouTube which confirm who were the commentators. But I don't think youtube sources are considered valid.
Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it's trivial. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
TV commentators are noteworthy but radio commentators are trivial? Is radio less important? --Jameboy (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Radio is as important tv. It should be given a mention on the page. Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for the radio coverage at all? If not, it’s obviously not as important. – PeeJay 14:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a source other than radio commentary on youtube channel. I wanted to point out the details of radio commentators Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally I think our section on the TV coverage is too detailed already - mentioning who the touchline commentators were and whether the BBC started 10 mins earlier than the ITV coverage, is excessive. I decided to let sleeping dogs lie and not to remove it when working on this for GA and FA last year, but really it could be cut down by a lot. And by the same token we certainly don't need to add radio as well. Note that other football match FAs such as 2014 FIFA World Cup final don't have any such detail, they simply give the global television audience as a one-liner in the match summary.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment that it could be cut down, but using another article as justification for that isn't right. Couldn't we make the reciprocal argument that the 2014 article should be expanded to feature such information? – PeeJay 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I think adding the media (radio and tv) from the countries that are playing in a match should be included. Only thing that was missing was radio commentators that is why I pointed out in this thread. I agree with you Media details of commentators should be on the page. Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah sure, absence of that detail in another article isn't absolute proof, but consulting other examples is a fairly common way to judge whether a particular topic is merited or not. And evidently the FAC reviewers at the 2014 article didn't feel that the absence of detail on German and Argentinian TV pundits for that game was a major problem. But anyway, leaving that aside, it seems we agree on the principle in this article that there may be excessive detail, so the question is how much? Personally I would at least remove commentator details and what time the coverage began, and just leave which networks covered the game, plus the viewer figures. As a neutral reader I don't really care much about any of this detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No, you're right, absence of that information isn't a major obstacle to an article about a football match reaching FA status, but its inclusion shouldn't be either. I think if the commentary was particularly notable, then we'd be justified in using a primary source just to identify the commentators, but as things stand, all we have is a primary source, which doesn't suggest to me that the commentators need mentioning. The broadcaster perhaps, but not the people who worked on the broadcast. – PeeJay 02:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Today in Parliament, MP's from both sides cited the figure "3000 - 5000" people who entered without tickets. This article refers only to "eyewitness reports saying the number of illegal entries might be in the hundreds." Does anyone know where the MP's got their figure? It seems this section could use an update.

Also, the bill being debated in Parliament criminalizes ticketless entry into football matches as a direct result of this incident, so maybe it should be mentioned in the aftermath section. Dcs002 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)