Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FIFA Club World Cup/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

FIFA Club World Cup

[edit]

FIFA Club World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it deals with important, specific and detailed information to the best title a football club can achieve.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I notice that this nomination is only your eighth total edit, and that you've made only five edits to the article. Usually nominations are made by the principal editor of an article; the instructions at the top of the FAC page require someone who is not a principal editor to consult with them before nominating. I'm also worried that as a new editor you might not be familiar with things like the featured article criteria or the Manual of Style (unless you've had an account before?). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had an account before but that was years ago (2005 I think when Tevez joined Corinthians). And I have forgotten my password and username so I just made a new one. I read the FA criteria and it seems I met everyone of them. This article deserves to be given the FA push for its quality. Shortly, I will start revamping Corinthians' article. But for now, I want to finish this. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, when I looked at the article again a few days ago, a lot of info another user put was omitted so I looked it over. Since the principal editor was banned, it is impossible to consult him/her. I did take a few of his/her pieces of work and made a section that deals exactly with the obstacles that were preventing a club world cup to be created instead of giving a history of other competitions. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Must not make jokes about Corinthians... While the article is undeniably well-done, maybe you should seek Good status before jumping straight to here. igordebraga ≠ 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about doing that until I read that getting an article become GA is not necessary for a FA label. Plus, as you have said...it is good enough to be considered a FA.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the FA process is more demanding. Anyway, if it gets shot down, use the 2 week pause to get to GA status. (will wait for more input here before supporting and stuff, but the sentence "where Manchester United gained the sole right to wear the badge by winning the trophy." needs a ref, unless it's the one that precedes it.) igordebraga ≠ 13:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The link was in the wrong place. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Can you provide a reference as to the legal status of 3D artworks in the location where the piture File:Trofeu_SPFC_-_Mundial2005_01.jpg was taken?

Oppose

94.197.33.20 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:FLAG, international competitions are exempted from the having the need to have country information with flags.
  • I have taken off the flags off the Sponsorship table.
  • I have created a key for the Performance table in accordance to WP:FLAG.
  • They are the official trophies for the competition and the NFU license allows such items to be viewed in the main page of the topic.
  • I replaced the image with another one containing an appropriate license.
  • I replaced the image with another one containing an appropriate license.
EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – From talk page discussions, I noticed that there was an edit war a couple of months back over a background history section in a different format. Do the non-banned editors consider this new format acceptable, or will there continue to be efforts to remove the content? Stability is part of the FA criteria, and I am reluctant to commit myself to reviewing an article when parts of it may not be there in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the reason I went ahead with this. It seems that things have calmed down a whole lot. I wasn't going to put in a bunch of work just to have it reverse, altered or simply messed with. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while Barcelona have the record of appearing in the most finals with three appearances." Quite redundant to have "appearing" and "appearances" so close to each other like this.
  • Genesis: "The idea that FIFA itself should organize international club competitions date from the beginning of the 1950s." "date" → "dates".
  • Score ranges in the second paragraph of this section need en dashes. This is something that needs checking throughout the rest of the article.
  • "Barassi also helped the organized the competition in 1952." Should be "helped organize the competition" instead.
  • "'to the extent of almost giving it an official FIFA stamp'. and as a competition...". Shouldn't be a period after the quote, but a comma.
  • "and as a competition that inspired the creation of the European Champions Cup from which it derives International Cup." I don't understand the meaning of the latter part of the sentence. Is it meant to be "from which the International Cup is derived."?
  • Obstacles to the creation of the Club World Cup: "as it was Real Madrid's first international competition, as European champions that they did not manage to win." The comma doesn't need to be there.
  • "FIFA stated that they would prohibit the 1961 edition to be played out unless the organizers regard the competition as a friendly or private match between two organizations." Surely "regard" should be "regarded" for past tense?
  • L'Equipe should be italicized as a printed publication.
  • "To protect itself against the possibility of European withdrawals, Toyota, UEFA and every European Cup participant...". "itself" → "themselves". This is unless "itself" is referring to UEFA, in which case a deeper rewrite is needed to avoid confusing readers such as myself.
Sorry, but I'm going to oppose at this time. I've only gone through a couple sections of the article and am finding issue after issue. I just don't think the writing meets criterion 1a at the moment. The article sorely needs a copy-edit or two from native English speakers to have a chance here. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't strike out a reviewer's comments or opposition. It's not good form and is misleading to other reviewers. Let the reviewer decide if comments have been adequately addressed. While the individual comments are taken care of, and I struck those, I still feel that the article needs outside copy-editing. I only reviewed a small portion, and there could be plenty of issues lurking in what's left. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator asked me to look at the article again, in the belief that all of the article's problems had been solved. I'm happy to see that Jayron did some copy-editing, but I'm not convinced that everything has been found and I'm not comfortable striking my oppose. Here are some examples of issues from the Birth section:
  • "stated that the Club World Championship is "a fantastic chance of becoming the first genuine world champions." This shouldn't say "is", since that is present tense and the event took place 13 years ago. I think that "provided" or "offered" work work best in this particular sentence as replacements.
  • The space between US$ and 28,000,000 should be removed.
  • In the same area, there shouldn't be two U.S. dollar links in a single sentence. I see more of them later in the section; is there a template that may be causing this?
  • "The FIFA Organizing Committee approved the procedure for the final draw on October 19, 1999 which was held at the Copacabana Palace Hotel in Rio de Janeiro." Confusing wording. Was the procedure process done in Brazil, or the draw itself?
  • "Real Madrid went on to defeat Al-Nassr 3–1 on that same match." Everything after the score is redundant phrasing that can be removed without affecting the meaning.
  • "due to combination of factors" needs an "a" before "combination".
  • The long list of potential host nations for 2003 is an unwiedly list. Why doesn't it just say that 17 countries sought to be the host? If readers want to know which countries, they can read the source.
  • "In the final, I Rossoneri made short work of Boca Juniors". First, non-football fans aren't going to know that I Rossoneri represents Milan's nickname. Second, "made short work" is a bit informal for FA-level writing. This sentence needs a rewrite to address both aspects.
  • "The saw off Ecadorian club LDU Quito 1–0 to become world champions in 2008." "The" → "They". If you're going to tell me that an article has been improved enough for me to strike an oppose, I shouldn't see issues as blatant as this.
  • "The next two FIFA Club World Cups, 2013 and 2014, will be hosted in Morocco, the first time the tournament will be held in Africa." This is unsourced, and it's odd to have "first time" for something describing two occasions.
Sorry, but I still don't think the prose is there based on this sample, which is not extensive. At this point, the fastest route to FA would be to withdraw this from FAC and open a peer review in which the article's issues can be ironed out without the time crunch inherent at FAC. Also, soccer writers can offer opinions about what elements should be covered to take care of that issue for next time. Unfortunately, I can't see this passing at FAC in this condition. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished fixing the above issues.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I haven't read the article in detail; this oppose is based on criterion 1a. The prose is not strong enough at the moment. Most paragraphs I looked at had either clumsy phrasing or straightforward errors such as "There has been two trophies handed out to the world champions". On the basis of the limited review I did, it does seem like a detailed article and I would like to see this come back after a thorough copyedit, but at the moment the article is not ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an administrator do a copyedit of the article. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The tone used in the writing of this article is not neutral and full of useless information, mainly in the "history" section (for example, is clearly an attempt to give the tournament a longer tradition than actually has to relate it with unofficial competitions like Lipton Trophy, Little World Cup et al) without any specific reason as not being mentioned by FIFA in this section. The tournament's history is relatively short (it was proposed by FIFA Executive Committee in 1993, approved in 1996, ratified in 1998 at the FIFA Congress of Paris, held for the first time in 2000 and, finally, held every year since 2005, ie, the tournament is less than a decade of disputed), so, its main chapter ("History") should reflect this, regardless if in the 19th century were held tournaments today nobody remember or during the post-war some "friendly" competitions were really pitched battle due for describe this exist each corresponding article and, in fact, only have anecdotal relationship with this tournament. This tournament, objectively, was not free from objections and refusal to be created by the media and mainly, clubs (for example, G-14), UEFA and the CSF confederations (one of the reasons why it was "suspended" until 2005) also the first edition was pyrrhic value to the world press, however, omitted to explain that part of the history of the competition, while interestingly discussed in detail -although not for this article-, 'how poor were the others, so it simply does not deserve to be featured.

Additionally, this article is full of opinion articles (which are potentially POV) and pay-per-view articles to prevent any reader can verify what is stated in Wikipedia.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about your opposition was constructive in the least. As a matter of fact, it looks far more like a deliberate disruption. How you managed to bring the 19th century into the FIFA Club World Cup is beyond me. Some of your sentences make no sense at all. I welcome criticisms because I improve whatever I am doing and I get to see things clearly. But please refrain from giving any more irrelevant rants, especially in a FA nomination page, just so you can derail the purpose and nature of the regulations. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "hidden" template that you used to hide these comments. The delegate will decide whether or not the oppose is actionable or not; you're free to comment, as you have, but hiding comments isn't a good idea. Just let the delegate review and decide. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more thorough inspections of the article:

  • All the references have been changed to follow a similar format (mdy)
  • All foreign references carry English translations
  • All foreign references have links linking them to their respective languages
  • All images have ALT text
  • An administrator has copyedited the page himself and fixed the few errors left. He also changed the wording of certain parts to make it flow better.
  • Got rid of references appearing more than once
  • Per the copyeditor, I did yet another copyedit, reworded and simplified a lot of the sentences, and eliminated the overuse of a single reference in a paragraph unless it had vital information.

I have to say that I really see nothing else that could be done to this article. We have even done things that weren't in the FAC list. This is definitely FA quality now. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same admin copyedited the article again and I went through each reference one by one and fixed all double links and dead links. I also added authors, editors, reference format, original published dates and page numbers to each reference that provided/needed that information.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/FIFA_Club_World_Cup/archive1&oldid=1076191333"