After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme149900:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be freely licensed in both the US and Italy, the photographs must have been out of copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. This means that photographs that cannot be dated to before 1976 should not be used (File:Monza lineup in 1975-76 (1).jpg). Other images look ok for licensing based on my non-expert understanding of Italian copyright law. (t · c) buidhe16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme149917:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the new image added, File:Stadio Sada 1970.JPG, I checked the source and I'm not seeing how we can confirm the image was taken in 1970. Also, it needs to be published before 1989 for URAA to apply. Otherwise it follows the US rules for unpublished works (70 years from the author's death, if known, else the shorter of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation). (t · c) buidhe16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly three weeks in and this has yet to attract a general support. Unless this nomination attracts considerable further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be. Maybe ask some of the regular sports and/or general reviewers in advance for any informal comments and if they would consider reviewing it. Possibly do this formally via peer review. Sometimes an article doesn't get reviewed because potential reviewers think it is likely not up to scratch and wish to avoid the acrimony of having to say this. I am not saying this is necessarily the case here, but PR may help address such issues if they do exist. Doing some reviewing yourself will help. One, you'll get a better idea of the sort of things needed by actually getting into the nuts and bolts of assessing them in a dozen or so articles; two, if potential reviewers have seen your name cropping up at FAC helping out with other articles they are more likely to be disposed to select one of your nominations the next time they are wondering what to review. Lastly, don't be afraid to ask; even now a polite, friendly, neutrally phrased message on the talk pages of half a dozen football article nominators/reviewers may save this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated! I've just contacted a few users who have recently reviewed football-related FACs. In case it doesn't work out, I'll go for a peer review. Nehme149921:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between the 2000s and 2010s, they faced financial issues and were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015 --> Can we make this simpler and just say "In the 21st century, they .."
The 21st century spans 100 years; the issues lasted only for the first 15-ish years.
OK, but I don't think I understand what between the 2000s and 2010s means. I have never seen this construction. Simplest is if you just give the years. Or add "around" if it is not exact.
Between the 2000s and 2010s means between 2000 and 2019 (more or less). In reality, I can't really give a precise date for when the financial issues began or ended. It's more or less between [after 1999/2000] and [around 2015]. Is there no better way to say "circa during the first two decades of the 21st century"?
I find temporal references always tricky, but I would say "At times during the first two decades of the 21st century, they faced financial issues; they were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015."
Thanks, done.
Monza F.B.C. was founded --> should the acronym F.B.C. not be explained?
Done
to form A.C. Monza --> I would give the full name here
Done
when conscription forced teams to field their overage players --> I'm confused: what does overage mean?
The age at which you were forced to go to war. Not sure what it is (it's not explicitly mentioned in the source).
I've clarified it as when conscription forced teams to send their overage players to war. "Overage" is a translation of the Italian "maggiorenne", which is the opposite of "underage". Should I just use "adult"?
I have never seen overage. Adult is unambiguous.
Done.
The 2006–07 season was even more dramatic: in the first leg at home, --> is this in the play-offs again?
Yes, it's prefaced by "losing two consecutive play-off finals" before.
with high-end players with Serie A experience --> a few examples would be useful
I don't this it's that useful: I feel we'd be giving undue weight to these players. They were certainly "superstars" for the division (third) they were playing in, but not huge international names. I'd probably add examples for the upcoming 2022–23 Serie A season (once I add the paragraph next year), as Monza purchased a few Italy international players.
In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes. --> this does not seem to be mentioned in the running text. I don't think the illustrations align well with the text. "In 1971, Monza's kit underwent a slight but significant change: a vertical white band was added on the left-hand side" added to what? A red shirt I assume, but the text doesn't mention that.
I specified that the kit was red in 1971. I'm not sure what to do with the 1938/1962 striped kit.
Sorry, but I still don't get the shirts. 1) The text does not seem to mention the multi-stripe shirt from illustration 4. 2) The text "Monza's home kit has been red and its away kit white ever since" seems to refer to the colour scheme overall, but when it says "added" it seems to mean that the whole shirt was red.
Is it necessary to write in text that the multi-stripe shirt existed? It would literally be a copy-paste of the caption ("In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes"). It is sourced by the same book(s) used to source the rest of the section.
I have never come across an FA where the caption introduces information not in the text. But I have not seen anything in MoS that says so, so I guess you could argue it does not break any rules. But it is just very odd, it breaks the storyline. A reader who has read the text and then looks at the illustrations, will get confused.
The club colours became red (home) and white (away) from 1932 to present. Generally, the home kit was full-red, but sometimes there were variations from season to season (such as the striped shirt). The first major (semi-)permanent change came in 1971, where the thin lateral stripe was added. The stripe is white for the (red) home kit, and red for the (white) away kit.
You should explain it like this in the text. The current text does not say this. In the current text, if I ignore the illustrations, it is not possible to understand what "was added" means.
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
"Monza's first recorded win came on 20 September 1912" - surely it would be better to mention their first ever match rather than their first win?
I've consulted various contemporary newspapers and journals, as well as books on the club's history. I could not find anything other than their first win. Even the history section on the club's official website only lists the first win.
"Monza first participated in the Terza Categoria (third level) in the 1913–14 season [it]; they played their first match on 4 January 1914" - the 1913-14 season didn't start till January......?
It's nothing too out of the ordinary. The Terza Categoria was divided by region; maybe other regions started earlier? Anyway, this is what I've got from contemporary newspapers (and fact checked with books).
"Monza were grouped with Milan, Cremonese and Pro Patria in their qualifying group" - qualifying for what?
I've clarified that we're talking about the Prima Categoria.
"The match between Monza and Verona on 8 October 1955, was " - no reason for that comma there
Done
"Monza again failed qualification in the final matches" => "Monza again missed out on promotion in the final matches"
Done
"Monza failed promotion to the top flight" => "Monza failed to gain promotion to the top flight"
Done
"Monza won a record-fourth Coppa Italia Serie C" => "Monza won a record fourth Coppa Italia Serie C"
Done
"Stadio Brianteo was dysfunctional" - don't think "dysfunctional" is really the right word here, but I can't suggest a better one as I don't know what you are trying to say. Can you expand a little?
The stadium could not be used to host matches. The city of Monza cut the supply of gas and light towards the stadium following the club's financial problems.
"The new ownership didn't last long" => "The new ownership did not last long"
Done
"Monza registered to the Serie D (fourth level) on 31 July" - what do you mean by "registered"? Were they relegated to this division?
On 23 and 30 May 2015, Monza played the Serie C relegation play-offs, which they won. Sports wise, they should have played in the Serie C in 2015–16. However, due to being bankrupt, the club was re founded as a phoenix club, and started back from the Serie D. This is standard procedure for bankrupt clubs in Italy; the Serie D is the first non-professional league in the country.
"Having finished the first leg in second place" - first leg of what?
Of the 2020–21 Serie B season; I thought it was self explanatory. Should I add "of the season" after "the first leg"?
In 40 years of following football, I have never heard reference being made to the first and second "legs" of a season. I have only ever heard "legs" used in the context of two-legged ties. I would simply say "the first half of the season"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. In Italy we would say "andata" and "ritorno", which I didn't know how to translate. I've fixed it now.
Not sure what I should change here. I'm using the collective "they" to refer to the club.
link bankrupt
Done
Forti e Liberi — needs a footnote, no idea what this is
It's a sports club based in Monza. Is it necessary to add a footnote to explain this?
behind direct promotion — automatic promotion?
Done
they needed an away win to first-placed Varese— against is clearer
Done
In May 2016, the club changed its name to S.S. Monza 1912; the team achieved promotion back to the Serie C under coach Marco Zaffaroni in 2017.[112] — perhaps and instead of semicolon
Done
Corona Ferrea — give translation, iron crown
The text already says "Corona Ferrea (Iron Crown)". Should I also give the translation in the image caption?
newly annexed city of Fiume — say who it was annexed from, and perhaps a footnote saying it's Croatian again now
I've added a footnote (Fiume (today known as Rijeka) was part of Italy until 1947, when it became part of Yugoslavia. The club is today known as HNK Rijeka.)
The costs in lira are pretty meaningless now, especially outside Italy, perhaps current equivalents in euros?
I've written the equivalent in Euro using an inflation converter (inflationhistory.com). Not entirely sure if this is the best way to show the conversion.
two follow-ups: Forti e Liberi I think needs a little clarification in the text or a footnote. With that name, I wondered if we were talking about sportsmen associated with a far-right orgainisation
Thank you for the conversion to euros. I couldn't see a reference or footnote to the converter you have used; I might have missed it, but if not you will need to add one. Also, in the ref and the first example in the text you will need to say what year the euro convertions relate to. I assume 2021, but you don't say that Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: I've added the following ref: Historical conversion from Italian lira to Euro according to the Italian National Institute of Statistics online calculator (rivaluta.istat.it/Rivaluta/). Euro figures refer to June 2022. I've tried to clarify the Forti e Liberi part, let me know if it's good. Nehme149911:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Calcio Monza 1984/85". Corriere di Monza e Brianza (in Italian). 1984." in the "Further reading" section doesn't provide enough information for a reader to locate it.
Removed.
I see by looking through the Italian Wikipedia that the convention is often not to capitalize the initial letter, in e.g. "il Cittadino", where in English you would capitalize it. I can't tell what the rule is, but can you confirm it's correctly applied throughout? For example, I see 'Camesasca, Enrico (July–August 1962). "sulla "corte" in camicia azzurra nasceva 50 anni fa il calcio monzese"' in the bibliography, but the magazine contents page lists it with a capital "S". Conversely, you have "La Gazzetta dello Sport" and "Il Giorno" in some citations.
"La" and "Il" are equivalent to "The". I've capitalized all instances.
In a few cases you have a domain name (e.g. "goal.com") rather than the website name.
I've fixed these instances. CalcioMercato.com uses the domain name as part of their brand.
I can't easily judge the reliability of the book sources. Can you say if any of them are self-published, or published by the club itself, and hence to be treated with caution for some kinds of information?
None of the books is published by the club itself. They are all written by football experts and/or journalists (for example, Stefano Peduzzi works as a director for Monza-News, which is an officially registered newspaper).
You have a dozen cites to "il Cittadino" and two dozen to "il Cittadino (Rivista di Monza e del Circondario)"; are they the same source? If so, the names should match. Or is it the same paper with a different title at different times?
Same paper with different title at different times.
You have both "Il Corriere di Monza e della Brianza" and "Corriere di Monza e della Brianza".
One uses "Il", the other doesn't. It seems to be a minor newspaper of the 1920s; even searching online I find inconsistent titles (some use "Il", others don't). Not sure what to do here.
Missing lang tag on several: [13], [116], for example; please check for more.
Done
You have direct external links as sources in the "Club officials" section; can you convert these into the usual citations"?
Done
Starting to look at the sources. Is "il Cittadino (Rivista di Monza e del Circondario)" the same paper as Il Cittadino (quotidiano di Monza)?
What makes the following reliable sources? I am going to guess that many of these would be completely obvious to an Italian speaker, but if they're listed below it's because I couldn't figure it out from either the Italian Wikipedia or the source's website.
MBNews -- per this page it appears they invite reader submissions, which is a concern for reliability.
It's officially registered as a newspaper per their footer. The reader submissions is just a sort of "suggestion" or "event report" by users. I assume the newspaper double checks that the info is correct.
Blasting News -- I can't find out anything about them.
I've replaced the source with a Gazzetta dello Sport one.
Monza-News -- ditto
Monza-News is also officially registered as a newspaper per their footer. Their director Stefano Peduzzi works as a sports journalist and TV host for several notable TV stations such as Sportitalia and Telelombardia (see link)
Tutto C
Officially registered as a newspaper. Associated to the "Unione Stampa Periodica Italiana" (USPI), and a section of TUTTOmercatoWEB.com, whose director is Michele Criscitiello.
PianetaEmpoli
Officially-registered newspaper.
SAB Monza
The official ultras group of the team. I've replaced the source with a Monza-News one.
Sport People
Officially-registered newspaper.
Squawka -- looks like a blog post?
They are associated with Opta Sports. It is definitely one of the top data-related football websites.
Pass. An interwiki link for Il Cittadino would be nice but is optional. For Il Corriere di Monza e della Brianza I would go with whatever you think is more usual, or just pick one, but I don't see a reason to retain the inconsistency. Neither is a reason to hold up passing the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've used the traditional Wayback Machine for the second, and a Google cached version for the first. Is it an issue for the latter? Nehme149920:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}