Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicycle kick/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2016 [1].

Bicycle kick

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth FAC nomination. The article is about the bicycle kick, which is one of association football's most celebrated skills. It has gone through numerous reviews, including the Guild of Copy Editors (twice) and a couple of GA reviews. I consider that the article covers all major areas of the subject, provides an exceptional narrative about the maneuver and its relevance to association football culture, tactics, and history. A comment in the talk page also pointed out that the article was great at providing the names of various notable figures in the sport's history. The sources are mostly sports books (as this is a sports article). A request has been recently made for a video to be included into the article, but I don't consider that to be a problem for the FAC nomination. In fact, I think this request highlights the high quality of the article (see the version prior to my major work: [2]). I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. I thank in advance all support votes, and kindly request oppose/neutral votes to please provide an opportunity to correct any problems.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a difficult topic to describe, so you deserve some credit for the attempt and for the clarity of some of the article. I can't support, however, first because the definitions of and delineation of what qualifies as a bicycle kick are not clear. The lead defines it as "a physical move in association football achieved by throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." Surely the ball needs to be mentioned! No-one reading that definition would have much chance of copying the action accurately. This needs a rethink. It continues with "the manoeuvre is named after either the cycling motion or the scissor motion that it resembles". Try cycling with the same movement: the legs go in the wrong direction. The Name section is very international, but I'm not convinced that bicycle=overhead=scissors. The Mark Hughes goal against Spain is mentioned later. Watch it on youtube (or elsewhere) – it doesn't resemble the description in Execution or most of the images on the page. At the very least, the article needs more detail on the differences among these three. On a separate point, what happened with the GA reviews? There appeared to be two happening at the same time, one of which was completed successfully. Did you address Alpinu's points from the first review? EddieHugh (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

What an interesting comment! Let me respond to what I find to be the major points in your comment:

Mentioning the ball is an improvement. I added a mention of it here: [3]. Most of the literature on the topic emphasizes the motion, rather than the ball. Players can perform bicycle kicks without striking the ball, generally to much ridicule (and usually to some minor injury).
The second sentence refers to the name, which the body of the article proceeds to explain. Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a manual; if the reader wants to become a master of the bicycle kick, the article provides enough sources and external links to help an aspiring Pele reach his or her dreams. The article's lead section is also a summary of the information in the body of the text, so it is unreasonable for a reader to expect being fully capable of executing a bicycle kick (one of association football's most difficult and dangerous moves) from just reading the introduction.
About the bicycle kick=overhead=scissors, I added a sentence to further explain what is found in the literature: [4]. The literature on the topic predominantly places all of them as the same, and even those sources that distinguish them (such as Witzig) indicate the only difference is in the angle of the maneuver.
Alpinu's GA review was done in bad faith and without following the GA criteria. The user was given over a week to improve their review according to the GA guidelines, but Alpinu refused to do so. You can read more about the problem at the GA archives (see [5]), or you can also ask senior GA participants Cordless Larry and Wugapodes. Moreover, I consider to have addressed all of the points raised by Alpinu, even the one about flipping the alphabetical order of a sentence because he wanted the term chilena to be presented before the term chalaca.

Thanks for the comment, Eddie! Please let me know if you have any further thoughts.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a brief overview of the GA reviews for those wondering. It's uncommon but not unheard of for a reviewer to do a review out of line with the GA criteria (that's why WP:What the Good article criteria are not exists). Marshal raised their concerns on the GA talk page and they were discussed. The general feeling of participants was that the review was unfair, so Marshal would be best off closing and resubmitting. Not wanting it to languish longer because of a bad review (it can take well over a month for a GA review to start), I offered to do a new one immediately. This isn't uncommon, as there's no minimum wait period to resubmit, and a new review is generally faster than reviewing an unfair decision. I hope that answers some questions, and best of luck to you Marshal! Wugapodes (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wugapodes. Thank you for taking the time to write this explanation. I appreciate it a ton! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

I was pleased to see an article about this iconic move here at FAC. I had the football bible The ball is round within arm's length when I saw your nomination. Thank you for bringing it here, as a result I've spent a good ole time on youtube watching the greatest overhead kicks. As for my comments, my main concerns are twofold:

1: I like the content but not the organisation of it. I found it puzzling and think it makes the whole article come across as rambling on. For example, the whole article is basically about multiple claims to invention, so why end with a subsection called Controversy? Another example, .. is in Invention but the similar sentence is in the Diffusion section, and another similar sentence is in Acclaim. I am not 100% sure how to fix it, but something needs to be done. Maybe list all claims, ordering them by time/country. And then round it off with various conclusions from sport historians who investigated the matter.

2: The actual move needs a better description. In the lead it says "throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." This doesn't capture the essence for me. It misses out that the foot is higher than the head when it hits the ball, and misses out the ball goes over the head, kicking it behind the player. See for instance Gardner book p. 144. In the Execution section, it doesn't even mention what is in the lead. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that go through the move step by step.

Detailed comments:

I am fairly new here at FAC, so more experienced reviewers are better judges, but in my interpretation of the style rules it is only needed to add references in the lead if the content is controversial. I admit there are a few statements that are somewhat controversial, but not to the extent that lawsuits are imminent, and even so, why so many citations in the lead, even for the uncontroversial statement about successful performance [5]? And surely the footnotes can wait till the body of the text? I would not use any citations in the lead.
"Bicycle kicks are used when players find the acrobatic manoeuvre their best resource." Not sure where in the text this is backed up. I don't agree with it as a statement either, as I have seen the odd case of showboating.
Why describe defensive before offensive? I would think that they occur more often in attack, although I have no evidence for this. (Actually, with all the stats collected these days, is there nothing published on frequency? I checked The Numbers Game by Anderson & Sally, but nothing sadly.)
The turn of the 20th century is too ambiguous, see turn of the century. Maybe say "beginning of"
I think the Diego Costa image is not as good as lead image as the Ruben Mendoza one. Costa's move is partly obscured. Mendoza's move is clear. Plus it being in black and white signals instantly that this is not a modern invention.
"sculptures, films, and literature" It features in commercials as well, which I think should be mentioned. I'm sure you can find sources. There are many, but Rooney's ad is described [[6]] for instance.
"through a cross" I would say 'from a cross'
"enough space to perform it—Peruvian defender César González would allow the ball to pass him" I am not sure I get the connection: how does letting it pass make enough space?
The caption "British football was the foundation for a uniquely South American style of football, especially in the Río de la Plata region.[24]" this text should be in the body. As a caption it is misleading, because it seems this is a 1895 painting between 2 English clubs. I like the image, but I'm not convinced it is appropriate in this article.
Perhaps it is possible to reduce the number of parentheses, especially in the Invention section, some don't seem necessary.
"stevedores" probably deserves to be linked
"Peruvians and Chileans during these years" It's not clear to me which years these are, better to spell it out
"first performed the bicycle kick outside Western South America in matches in Argentina and Spain" Again, when was this?
"During the first editions of the South American Championship" Again, which year?
"It was also around this time that, in Brazil, .. " This whole paragraph here puzzles me. It's not clear why this is in the Diffusion section, as it starts with a Brazilian with local fame and ends with yet another claimed inventor.
"received numerous Argentine, Uruguayan, and Brazilian footballers" Is received the right word?
"During this time, one of the first notable" Again, which years?
"despite his appearance" is unnecessarily mysterious if you don't elaborate in what way his appearance was at odds with being fine instinctive. It may be better not to mention this at all
any reason why tiro de chalaca is in italics but "a la Piora" in quotes?
I would make all of Leônidas da Silva a link
The source [7] says that Leonidas said himself at the end of his life he was not the inventor. That is significant info I think.
"The majority of the goals" is at odds with the earlier statement that he only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick
"Italy won the 1938 World Cup, according to sports historian David Goldblatt's, with a nucleus of Argentine-born players.[56] The influx of South American footballers ended before the Second World War" This seems out of place, should be with the previous paragraph about Italy. Although one could argue it is not needed at all in an article about the bicycle kick.
"Doug Ellis, President Emeritus of English club Aston Villa, claims" should be claimed
"Due to the lack of new developments in British football at the time, this last claim is unlikely to be true" First of all, by saying this one is not true, you are inferring all the others are true. Secondly, the logic seems a bit odd to me, somehow it is a fact that there are no new developments and thus the bicycle kick could not have been invented?
I am not sure why the 1st paragraph of Acclaim is in the Acclaim section and not in one of the earlier sections
Goal of the Century: maybe add that that goal was a long solo, to ensure it isn't thought to be a bicycle kick
"match between Argentina and England" Argentina should be a wikilink the first time mentioned, not here
"Sweden and England" England should have been linked earlier. Check other links as well: Only first occurrence should be a link.
Rooney: it was significant that the goal was in the Manchester derby
"injuries": it should say whose kick it was, Tueart's, it's too generic now, and reader is likely to think it is Lake's
Why is Balotelli in the culture section?
"best overhead and scissors kicks" why not use bicycle kick?
Why are the Huhes and Oblitas kicks in culture section and not with the Sanches, Rooney, etc kicks?
"The Uruguayan novelist " I'm not sure why this is part of the same paragraph as the sculptures
"Spanish edition " This makes it look as if in the English translation it is different. Is it? Simpson & Hesse don't say so.
"According to a FIFA report, bicycle kicks are common in beach soccer" I don't think this sentence adds anything. Just add the source to previous sentence.
The "See also" links seem, apart from the history one, rather random. I think the article can easily do without this section. At the very bottom are category links to related articles, those suffice.
Footnote A: Gardner also distinguishes between the two, see page 148. I'm not sure the footnote is the right place, I think a case could be made to mention it in the body of the article
"HMS Amphion arrived to Callao" maybe at Callao?
Footnote F. I think this should be in the maiin text, not footnotes. Especially since these are reports from people not from Peru or Chile.
Footnote G. Again, consider lifting it out of the footnotes, as it is quite important info.
Bibliography: Freire & Ribeiro 2006 is missing
Bibliography : Pele and Fish is 2007 I believe, not 2013
Glanville, Brian (2010). No reference pointing to this book
reference 62: Pelé 2006, The Beautiful Game. page numbers missing
Cunha, Loris Baena (1994 and Rull, Nomdedeu (2004) and a few others could use a translated title
Inconsistent ISBN format. Most are ISBN 13 but a few are ISBN 10. Easy to convert them here: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter

I hope this is not too daunting to fix. I'd love to see it featured on the home page one day. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi Edwin! Thank you for the thorough review of the article. One of the reasons I love the FAC process is reading input from other researchers/writers/editors. I am genuinely grateful for all of the time you put into helping improve the article!

I'll respond to the major comments first and then to the specific ones:

1. The subsection on controversy highlights the popular culture aspect of it in South America. The perspectives provided there include that of aficionados, researchers, football administrators, and even football players. The current organization of the article follows a narrative structure that is better than a list. The article itself isn't about claims to invention, rather it is about the spread of the bicycle kick, the public's fascination with it, and the relative obscurity of the move that (even in the second half of the twentieth century) led to people claiming certain players as "inventors" (which is more of an honorific title than a reality); I purposely mentioned those in the article to show how the public reacted to the display of the maneuver.

I think mass media has helped make the move more visible. When writing the article, I placed myself in the eyes of these viewers seeing the bicycle kick for the first time. I think it is the same experience moviegoers had when they saw Pele do it in Escape to Victory.

2. Here is another improvement to the lead sentence based on the suggestions ([8]). Here is another one with the "above head level" suggestion ([9]).

I'll comment on the rest later on.

Thanks again for the suggestions! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further response

Execution description: Improved. [10]
Best resource: Removed. [11]
Defensive/Offensive: Does it really matter which one goes first? I also can't find stats on it; I've seen it used a lot in South American football as a defensive move (mainly for showboating, but still a defensive move).
Turn of the century. Changed. [12]
Title image switch: Done. [13]
Commercial ads: Done. [14]
Enough space. The Gonzales example was not translating correctly, so I just made it more straightforward. [15]
British football image. Image improved (more relevant to the text) [16]
Reducing parentheses. Done. [17]
Wikilinking stevedores. Done. [18]
Clarification on dates. Done. [19]
Is received the right word? I don't know. If you have a better alternative, please let me know.
Piola's apperance. Fixed. [20]
A la piola quote consistency Done. [21]
Leonidas not inventor. That's not the point. Leonidas, Piola, Parola, Pele, etc. are not the inventors of the bicycle kick. That's why the invention section is separated from the rest of the narrative. The attribution of invention is more of an honor than a reality in these other cases.
Pele goals. It's not that he actually only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick. He's just trying to say that the amount of times were few compared to the other goals he scored. Fixed. [22]
Italy 1938. Fixed. [23]
Doug Ellis. I blame the confusion and odd logic on Wilson. It should be fixed now. I think his point is that British football had yet to adapt many of the developments made in other parts of the football world. [24]
Acclaim first paragraph. The prior section ends with the South American players ending their migration. The acclaim section focuses on the story since then.
Argentina and England. Argentina's national football team is first mentioned here.
Sweden and England. Fixed. [25]
Manchester derby. Mentioned. [26]
Best bicycle kicks: Moved and fixed. [27]
Tueart: Added. [28]
Balotelli: Clarified that this was during his youth years. [29]
Beach soccer: Improved. [30]
Sculpture and writings: I associate the two as works of art, so I placed them in the same paragraph. Yes, it seems that Vargas Llosa only mentions this in the Spanish edition (unless I missed it when reading the English version, which is unlikely).
Footnote A: Done. [31]
Footnote F & G: These work best as footnotes. There's no reason to overwhelm the readers with these details in the main text. They also would detract from the narrative flow.
At Callao: Done. [32]
Freire & Ribeiro: Fixed. [33]
Pele Fish 2007: Fixed. [34]
Pele 2006: Page numbers not included, so next-best alternative is the chapter title.
Glanville 2010: Fixed. [35]
Translating titles: Done. [36]
ISBN 13 standardizing: Done. [37]

@Edwininlondon: I've fixed nearly everything that you pointed out, but did disagree with a few suggestions. I hope the minor disagreements are not considered a challenge or a cause for dispute, because I do wholeheartedly consider the article now looks and reads much, much better thanks to your suggestions. Please let me know your thoughts. Again, thanks for the improvements; you're the best!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kareldorado

I will go over the entire text, sentence by sentence, and at the end I will try to give feedback about the article as a whole.

Intro:

I would split the first sentence in two: "... physical move in association football achieved by throwing ... " -> "... physical move in association football. It is achieved by throwing ..."

Section Name:

Instead of "three names: the bicycle kick, the overhead kick, and the scissors kick" rather "three names: bicycle kick, overhead kick, and scissors kick"
At the sentence "The manoeuvre is also called an "overhead kick", which (according to football instructors Klaus Bischops and Heinz-Willi Gerards) refers to.. " I would either drop the ( ) symbols, either everything within the ( ).

Section Execution:

Instead of "Not only does the performer need to maintain good form when executing the move, but must simultaneously exhibit exceptional accuracy and precision when striking the ball." I would suggest "... when executing the move; he must simultaneously ..."
At "... when a player facing his side's goal uses the action to clear the ball in the direction opposite his side's goalmouth ...", I think it is clear enough when you say "opposite direction" instead of "direction opposite his side's goalmouth"

History, subsect Invention:

For more concise writing in " ...they find that separating fact from fiction is possible when searching available records and that truth is more satisfying than legend." I would suggest "they think reconstructing the true history is possible, and that it is to be preferred over the legend."
Perhaps "." instead of ";" to split this long sentence: "According to Chilean journalist Luis Osses Guíñez (author of Talcahuano's football history), Unzaga's first recorded bicycle kick occurred in 1918, as documented by a civil law notary report filed after a heated match between Talcahuano and neighbouring Concepción turned violent; Unzaga, described by Osses Guíñez as a hot-tempered Basque, got into a fistfight with a referee who called a foul on the player's bicycle kick."

... to be continued ...

Kareldorado (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karel! Thank you for the improvement suggestions. I applied most of them (see [38]). The sentences in the execution section were heavily worked on by copy-editors, and I would prefer to leave them as they are at the moment.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review has been open around six weeks without attracting support for promotion, or indeed any comments at all for the past month, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.