2005 UEFA Champions League final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	2005 UEFA Champions League final is part of the 2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed November 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed December 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed January 13, 2024 Good topic candidate Promoted Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: England / Italy / Liverpool Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Italian football task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Liverpool task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I've changed the timing of Liverpool's first two goals to 54' and 56' and altered "Six minutes of madness" to "Seven ...". The source for the new timings is from the UEFA website [1]. With the first goal scored in the 54th minute and the last scored in the 60th minute, the time between the first and last goals could be as short as 5 minutes or as long as 7 minutes, depending on exactly when the goals were scored within the minute. UEFA describes the goals as having been scored in 7 minutes [2] Peter Harriman 08:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to acquire the exact goal timings, with seconds, and then there really could be little argument. aLii 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find them. Peter Harriman 11:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, but I can't find exact timings anywhere. I guess someone with a video of the game will have to re-watch it, stopwatch in hand! Peter Harriman 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of footage on youtube shows Gerrard scoring at 53:04, Smicer at 55:03, and the penalty and third goal at 59:51.67.10.62.211 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the elapsed time is 6:47 - seven minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barfbagger (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Surely Alonso's goal shouldn't be marked as a penalty as he scored with the rebound?

No beacause it wasn't a penalty, was it? El-Nin09 19:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the neutrality of this article. The language suggests it was written by a fan of Liverpool. Can the language be adjusted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rico987 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To be honest I would say the language suggests it was written by an AI bot. The whole article needs rewritten. It is terrible to read. 202.133.142.115 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement. This sentence in particular stuck out to me: "The sense of injustice felt by Milan supporters mirrored that of the Liverpool fans after the first half's second goal, as in both cases the goalscorers had benefited from an unawarded free kick." Is this sentence not game analysis, rather than recap? It seems to be trying to justify the "equality" of the goals for both teams. (Note: I am neither a Liverpool or AC Milan fan). - JML

It didn't nearly miss Alonso when Smicer took his '20 yard shot', it was Baros I'm going to change it now. Jazza5 10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "in the second round Andrea Pirlo's shot was saved by Liverpool's goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek, although controversy later arose over the goalkeeper's supposed movement off his goal line before the ball was kicked". Why the 'guarded' way of saying this? I just watched a recording of that match and it is clear that Dudek moves before the shot. Shouldn't the article reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squishycube (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go...

• "...thus lifted the trophy for the fifth time to keep permanently...." - English?  Done
• Good idea to use Liverpool's full title in the infobox i.e. with the F.C. added.  Done
• "Liverpool began their campaign at the 3rd Qualifying Round where, in the first (away) leg against Austrian Side Grazer AK two goals from Steven Gerrard secured a 2–0 victory for the club[2]."
  • Over capitalisation e.g. Qualifying Round, Side...  Done
  • Badly placed reference, see WP:CITE for where to put them
  • "...in the first (away) leg..." was there a second (away) leg? No. Confusing, rewrite needed for the non-expert.  Done
  • "...for the club" - which club? Rewrite required. - The Paragraph is about Liverpool so,  Done
• Why is the paragraph about Liverpool in the 3rd Q round not in the Liverpool section?  Done
• General - check all citation placements per WP:CITE.
• 1st should be written first.  Done
• 54th Minute, over-capitalised - check throughout.  Done
• "...17th Minute goal ,..." - space before comma - copyedit required.  Done
• Excess spacing between first and second para of AC Milan's route to the final section.  Done
• "Milan were given..." used three times in quick succession - try variation, like "..were drawn against..." etc. - Removed
• "...showed signs of complacency..." - this is POV and original research unless you can find a citation with the direct quote. - Removed
• Last three paragraphs of the Liverpool section are too short, consider merging.  Done
• "Only 52 seconds into the match, Paolo Maldini scored for Milan, scoring the fastest goal and becoming the oldest player (at 36) to score in a Champions League final." - such claims need references. - Removed
• Is it Hernan Crespo or Hernán Crespo? And avoid overlinking - he's wikilinked at least three times.  Done
• "...an exquisite finish...", "brought solidity to Liverpool's midfield", "which is sometimes hailed as the decisive factor in turning the game" - again all POV - needs citation or removal. - Removed
• "In the final moment of the penalty shoot-out. Television commentator said what had always been Liverpool's fan's greatest dream "And now the European Cup has returned to England and to Anfield" Unknowingly signifying Liverpool's new era." - English? Citation? - Removed
• The section describing the final needs serious citation.

So, I'm failing the GA for now, it really needs some work on the citations and several POV phrases. The Rambling Man 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs some more pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard LVP Real (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go...

• "It was the fifth time Liverpool had won the competition and, as a result were given the UEFA Badge of Honour to wear appears on there European kits." - terrible English problem here.  Done
• "... and got through..." - clumsy, and too many "just"'s... Done
• 1st should be "first" for "1st goal" and "1st game" etc...  Done
• Check all references are placed to the right of punctuation as WP:CITE advises.  Done
• Kaka is wikilinked twice in a row. No need. Plus, it links to a disambiguation page. Done
• "group" or "Group" games? Done
• "Milan now lead ..." - led? Done
• "Milan also won the second leg at the San Siro 1–0, once again, a goal from Crespo this time on the 61st minute was the difference." - this sounds like Crespo scored in the 61st minute in both games, did he really? Done
• Probably a good idea to mention that AC and Inter share the same ground. Done
• "A.C." or "AC" - consistency required. Done
• Probably best to use British English since this is a European article, half of which is about an English club, so "behavior" needs a u. Done lol
• "Milan were given..." odd turn of phrase, perhaps "Milan drew" or "Milan were drawn against..."  Done
• "Away goals rule" doesn't need the A capitalised in the prose. Done
• "Home" or "home" - consistency required.  Done
• "Quarter Finals" and "Semi-Final" - hyphen or no hyphen? Consistency required.  Done
• Inline link to "Match report" is inappropriate. Either make it an External link or use it as a reference and use ((Cite web)) template.  Done
• "net the bounce seemed" - some punctuation missing.  Done - removed second part.
• "Liverpool's play in the first half both in attack and defence was below expectations." - OR, cite or ditch. Done - ditched
• "a tight offside" - POV. Just offside or cite "tight".  Done - Changed to just offside.
• "a wonderful through-ball" - POV. Cite or remove.  Done
• "even the most optimistic Liverpool supporter probably thought the match was over given the apparently vast gulf in class between the two sets of players in the first half." - POV, OR, awful. Non encyclopaedic. Done rm.
• In fact, all of this match report is POV/OR. It needs copyediting by someone else besides the original author. -  Done
• Image:Liverpool Champions League.jpg has inadequate fair use rationale. Done - New image
• Trophy section completed uncited.  Done (I think you mean completely but oh well)

That's it. Again, a considerable amount to do. Let me know when you're done, or if you need help on the way. The Rambling Man 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)  Done -- WOO HOO! F9T 16:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why this image was deleted? Buc 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but seeing as I am to try and get this to GA or FA soon, i think that a photoshot of action from the match should be used. the BBC should provide some good ones. F9T 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LFC Champions of Europe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done added -- F9T 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the UEFA Champions League Final yet the 'Road to the Final' section seems longer than the 'Final' section itself. Most of the road to the final is a quite boring detailing of which minute the goals were scored in at relevant stages. I reckon the 'Road to the Final' could be drastically cut.

There also seems a lot of POV comments in here too.

• AC Milan easily advanced.
• unacceptable behaviour from the Inter Milan fans. - Just tell us what they did.
• Olympiakos then shocked Liverpool
• A great defensive performance
• This change meant Steven Gerrard was given the freedom to attack from his midfield position. - recollecting the match this is right, but please provide a reference.
• At this point the Liverpool supporters in the crowd began to get behind the team even more so than they already had.
• At this point the game began to settle.
• Serginho was the first player to take a penalty, possibly put off by Dudek dancing on the goal line, he blasted the ball horribly over the crossbar.
• Jerzy Dudek, although controversy later arose over the goalkeeper's movement off his goal line before the ball was kicked - as above with Gerrard. There must be a reference out there somewhere.
• Dudek dived to his right, but somehow managed to reach his hand behind his leg

Quite a few cliches too.

• At the end of normal time there was nothing to separate the teams - in scoreline maybe. Just say the scores were level at the end of normal time.

Also

• At the fourth round, Kaká netted for Milan, which, temporarily levelled the score at 2–2. Do you really need to say temporarily. Temporarily for how long? Another team were always going to score at some point.

I reckon the whole article could do with a substantially good copy edit. Peanut4 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but like the other three GA reviews, I have some problems:

Lead

• The lead section is a little short for an article as this lengh. For a GA, try and expand it to two paragraphs worth of writing.
• Also in the lead there is this sentence: "It is considered to be one of the greatest ever games of football", clear cut POV. If you wish to keep this you need to word it to say "According to X" or "It is considered by X to be the greatest...". As it currently stands, this sentence suggests that Wikipedia itself thinks this, which it shouldn't because it holds a Neutral Point of View.  Done

Route to the final

• I will let go the "easily progressed" bit as, IMO, you've justified it, although you could say that Barcelona would win the competition in the future.
• I personally think the group stage isn't really worth talking about, personally I'd only talk about two noteworthy games in the group stage - perhaps against Celtic and Barcelona?  Not done
• "unacceptable behaviour from the Inter Milan fans", can we please try and expand on this - you cannot say something like that without justifying it - some people may take offense.  Done
• I think it's worth saying that PSV Eindhoven won the Dutch league a number of times, eg. "...draw against X times Dutch League winners PSV Eindhoven".
• Same applies with the Liverpool ones.  Done - but relative to Champions League, as opposed to League titles

Match Summary

• "who was 20 yards from goal and struck a shot with power and precision, which Baros did extremely well to avoid, past Dida" - Try and avoid needless POV like this for a start. ;-)  Done
• Also, I don't really like the idea of the enbolded parts in the Penalty shoot out section. I think you should just delete them because it is mentioned later in the Match Details section  Done

General

• Finially, I have a minor problem with the images, I applaud the fact that you've tagged them, but I would like you to add a Fair use rationale specifically for this article, not just a general FU. -Been deleted so I'll get back round to this

Anyway, let me know how you've got on and I'll be happy to got over what you've done.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some Internazionale fans can be offended by being called Milan (as this is what AC Milan are commonly referred to, I shall set it to F.C. Internazionale here. // Finns 07:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the source is the BBC website? Believe me there are millions upon millions of people who consider it to be one of the greatest mates ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the source is the BBC, which means that the BBC believe it is, and it may not reflect public opinion. // Finns 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can add about one thousand sources of websites of newspaper articles which state that it was one of the greatest games ever. It doesn't matter if you're from Britain, Spain, Argentina etc. Millions of people around the world consider it to be one of the greatest mates ever. And that "Considered by the BBC" has been taken out, so now there isn't anything which states it is considered to be on of the greatest matches ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.227.114 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all sentenes should include the name of th sources. For example, the article could include the sentence "According to The BBC official website, the match was played in Istanbul, and it is known that Steven Gerrard scored Liverpools first goal because The Daily Mirror printed it as a fact." Would that please you?

Well no, because all of that would appear in the UEFA references that we have anyway, and the sources of those are at the bottom of the page // Finns 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look you retard, it is considered to be one of the greatest matches in the history of football and the opening paragraph should mention that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.227.114 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just not possible that the opening paragraph of this article should fail to mention the extraordinary nature of the match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.61.55 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original author was right, this match is considered one of the greatest matches of all time by multiple sources, mentioning it as such is hardly POV - perhaps the results of the various polls which have acclaimed it as such should be included? FOARP (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone has put bramball lane as the venue in the match report, and removed liverpools scorers - this is appalling behaviour and must be stopped at all cost! The good name of the scousers must be upheld otherwise no-one will trust us anymore! Then whose hub caps will we nick? Ay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.237.64 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we discuss the recent edits that are making the article horribly unstable. If the constant reversion keeps happening, I will have to ask that the article is locked, and I don't think anyone would want that. Thanks. --Ged UK (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - let's discuss the recent edits. This is WAR! You cannot edit us, we are the editless. I have a full dossier of evidence that proves that you have edits of mass discrimination against scousers. We will defend our right to be scally little twats to the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.171.48 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I review lead section and Route to the final section. Will need a few days to review the whole article. --Aspie me (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost finished my review, will post it tomorrow. :) --Aspie me (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 UEFA Champions League Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is quite good but has prose problems and missing some info. So I put the article on hold for seven days. Add the info and get a good copyedit, then I can pass it. Good luck! :)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Many problems here. :( A few examples:
   "four-times winners" and "six-times winners"
   Change "last year's" to "2004". "Last year" can mean 2008. For same reason, change "next season" to "the following season".
   *"The score was 3–2 to Liverpool when Andriy Shevchenko saw his penalty saved by Liverpool goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek, meaning Liverpool won their fifth European Cup, 20 years after being banned from Europe following Heysel." Long sentence, try to split and remove not needed details.
   "Third qualifying round"
   "in their final"
   "with each getting 20,000 tickets each"
   "Paolo Maldini, who had won…and Clarence Seedorf who has won"
   "doubt over who start as the main"
   "with Hernán Crespo being preferred to Filippo Inzaghi, who was not in the match day squad and Jon Dahl Tomasson up front"
   "his shot is cleared only for Gerrard to cross in from the right wing, which Sami Hyypia heads towards goal producing a save out of Dida"
   I see many commas placed wrong, I think is called comma splice
   "approxiamtely", wrong spelling
   "on the 8 July" and "on the 10 June"

Fixed all this I think NapHit (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   If there is one paragraph about qualification, why all the other rounds only in a table?
   Last two paragraphs of Summary section, better go to Post match section.
   Maybe mention in last paragraph about how Liverpool fare in 2005-06 Champions League
   Need to add paragraph about 2007 final rematch.

The route to the final doesn't need to talk about every round, just summarise it. The last two sections are fine in the summary, post-match is more about reactions. Next season is not relevant to this article, and only a brief mention is needed on the 2007 final which is done in the lead, there is n need for an extra paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Is "show-piece event" and "showpiece match" NPOV?
   "The early arrivals were lively but generally there was no violence and the mood between the two fans was friendly."
   Maybe "most notably" is POV.

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--Aspie me (talk)

Since an editor has requested an second opinon on this article - i have reviewed it inline with GA Critera and can not find anything wrong with it. Also since the comments above seem to off been sorted im passing this article. Well done Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro section is surely just way too detailed - some of the details of the group stage could be incorporated into the following section...and the complete failure to mention the extraordinary nature of the match makes it ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.204.198 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The penalty Gerrard won in the second half is widely regarded as dubious, but the article says he was "taken down" by Gattuso. Not really NPOV. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be noted here as well that when the referee awarded the penalty he should have given a red card to Gattuso as well for preventing a scoring oppurtunity in an illegal fashion (professional foul). There can't really be any discussion about this and if the rules had been applied in the correct fashion this would have had an enormous impact on the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.242.239 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There can't really be any discussion about this"

That's good to know. Good to see the edit-warring on this has stopped and NPOV has been respected... Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind=128/newsId=308644.html
  • In 2005 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-05-25 08:06:11, 404 Not Found
  • In 2005 UEFA Champions League Final on 2011-06-12 03:12:56, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalized Milan's third qualifying round match. It says "Bye" now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.138.60.214 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume that was vandalism? A "bye" is when a team doesn't have to play in a particular round of the competition; Milan didn't have to go through the qualifying rounds since they won Serie A the year before. – PeeJay 09:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2005 UEFA Champions League Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2004/round%3D1972/match%3D1086988/report%3Dst.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030801183619/http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf to http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind%3D128/newsId%3D308644.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn’t. Responded suggests they scored. But of course they didn’t. This is a very badly written article and somebody should re-write it. 202.133.142.115 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]