Wikipedia:Peer review/FIFA World Rankings/archive1

FIFA World Rankings

I have been working a lot on this article, and I don't know what sort of level it is at at the moment, I'd like to eventually see it got to FA status, but that may be a while, I don't know, so basically, it would be nice to hear how the article can be imporved, or what is wrong with it at the moment. Admittadly alot of the information is from the same source (FIFA surprisingly) but there aren't really any other sources for information on this topic. So, lets hear your comments on the article! Philc _T^E_C^I 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

The lead should give a summary of the article as a whole, not just an introduction. See WP:LEAD.
The History section is very short, whereas the method of caclulation is long and detailed, which seems disproportionate. Perhaps some content from the latter can be moved into the former.
The article looks potentially bewildering for those who do not have an in-depth knowledge of the sport. Perhaps some of the articles about voting systems could be of use in terms of giving ideas for the method of presentation.
Whilst I realise most of the article is based on FIFA sources, 2 citations seems a low number considering the length of article. For example the lead says "The rankings obtained are, unsurprisingly, the subject of considerable debate." Among whom? If that is the case then other sources ought be available and should be cited.
"introduced a ranking system for senior national teams after calls for a system that gives a fair comparison of the relative strengths of national teams". Who called for the system? What were the reasons for such claims?
I'd have to look more closely to be sure, but it looks as though the Comparison with Elo ratings is written from a pro-Elo POV.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the pointers, curiously to the point you made about the "The rankings obtained are, unsurprisingly, the subject of considerable debate." quote, there is a debate on this very subject on the talk page! though I'll look for some reputable sources and if there aren't any I'll remove it. When you say some of the information could be moved from the calculation section to the history section, what sort of information? And seeing as most of the crticism in comparison is accurate, how do I balance it to a NPOV, as you are right, it is Pro-Elo, but as far as I can see it is also accurate, so I don't know. Well thanks for the feedback. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By moving information from the calculation section to the history section, I mean things like a brief description of what the judgement criteria are, e.g. adding "When the rankings were first introduced the criteria were A B C.... The changes introduced in 1999 were D E F". This sort of information seems a little buried when put below the examples. Perhaps it'll be clearer what I mean if I make a couple of changes myself.
To be honest the whole examples section looks over complicated - I struggled to follow it and I have some knowledge about the subject, a reader unfamilar with the principles would have real trouble. Its not at all clear why each team scores the number of points it does. Why are 3-1 and 2-2 results used when 1-0 and 1-1 would be much simpler? This and the B and C pre-tournament scores look chosen specifically to make the Elo method look preferable. Oldelpaso 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples used were used because they were the ones on the FIFA website, they are still in the same table format as they were there, I'll see if I can re-organize them to make them more understandable. With the comparison I have now also highlighted the weakness with the Elo Ratings, and the scores chosen were chosen because with only three matches, I had to make something pretty substantial happen (i.e. the weakest team beat the strongest) for there to be anything worth comparing, now that you know my motives, do you still disagree with the scores selected? Regarding your other point, I will try to do that right away. I have re-organised the lead paragraph aswell, I think it conforms, though since you highlighted the issue, it's probably best if you are satidfied with the new one. Thank you for your feedback, It really helps. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead now looks a lot better. Oldelpaso 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've satisfied everything you mentioned, say if I've missed something. How far off FA do you think the article is? Philc _T^E_C^I 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there's a fair way to go. The only source cited is FIFA, as alluded to below. There must be people other than FIFA who have written about the world rankings. If the rankings are "the subject of considerable debate", the matters of debate should be mentioned in the article. Are the rankings used in any way (such as tournament seeding) or are they just a statistical curiosity? Coverage of the mechanics of the ranking system is comprehensive, but coverage of other aspects is not comprehensive yet. Oldelpaso 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, of course, the uses of the ranking. What sort of thing should I use to cite the issure of debate, as I take it people arguing on some blog site isn't good enough. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do you by any chance know what the rankings are used for? Philc _T^E_C^I 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are used at least to determine which teams have byes to the second round of World Cup qualification in Africa (and possibly North America and Oceania, not sure about these). Conscious 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the one to mention this since 98 percent of articles receive this complaint but it will come up eventually, is it possible to get more references? - Tutmosis 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh sure, pretty much All the information came from the FIFA site, so it won't take long to find it again and cite it, but I never know what to cite. Or do you mean more information from different sources? Philc _T^E_C^I 11:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may make more sense to have more inline references, i.e. footnotes after most important facts (referencing to a specific page of regulations, for example). Conscious 10:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand as I have never heard the term inline references, but most of the references do go to a specific page on a report/rules&regulations/etc. Philc _T^E_C^I 10:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone's noticed already, but sometehing has gone horribly wrong with this article .... big blocks of text are just repeated over and over and random sentences appear in fragments .... 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd better check your browser, all is fine to me. Philc _T^E_C^I 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]