Wikipedia:Featured article review/Football (soccer)/archive1

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

The article was kept 22:10, October 15, 2007.

Football (soccer)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notifications, project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports

Notifications, user: User:Raichu FAC nominator

Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1 (c) seems to be a problem as the article is tagged as having unsourced information since February 2007. __meco 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one {{fact}} tag (which took me two reads through the article to find) your only reason for listing for review? Oldelpaso 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much that as the fact that it hadn't been dealt with in six months. Admittedly, I haven't read the article. I just figured this to be a sign that there was a need for a general review as Featured Articles are supposed to be impeccable. If I've been rash in my nomination, I shall stand corrected and censured. __meco 09:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - a huge lack of references. 23 in total for a 39kb in length. Several paragraphs have hardly any references, and in most cases, zero references. Davnel03 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm willing to do whatever is required to keep this an FA, but at the moment I'm busy with an FAC nomination for another article. Oldelpaso 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will also help if needed. I think sweeping statements about citations is unhelpful though. Could you be more specific? The guidelines currently say anything that could reasonably be challenged should be cited. Some paragraphs may not be reasonably challenged and as such do not require citations. Woodym555 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy retain. A nomination by someone who confessedly has not read the article is frivolous; it is for one tag itself questionable (I am surprised that anyone would actually challenge the assertion that many Britons still speak of soccer in imperial). Footnote counting is not actionable, or productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, I left sample edits, references are incomplete and unformatted, Oldelpaso and Woodym555, pls let me know when it's ready for another look, and let us know if you need more time. The prose is also going to need a thorough audit; for example, notice this throw-away sentence: "The field has various other markings and defined areas." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gradually sifting through the prose. Oldelpaso 11:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see too much needing citation, that the game is played by two teams of eleven players etc. seems highly unlikely to be challenged, though as a football fan my view on what is obvious may differ to the norm. For the section about the rules, pretty much everything can be sourced to the FIFA Laws Of The Game. Its already referenced once, and to do so every other sentence would be unsightly IMHO. Oldelpaso 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced it for every paragraph, per this diff, to specific areas of the Laws of the game. I was going to cite "round ball" but hoped that no-one would find it very contentious. There are now no sentences/sections that could reasonably be challenged that are not cited. I see nothing that prevents it from retaining its FA status. Woodym555 17:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone see any problems with the article, or can we close this review? Woodym555 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. It's quite well written, and deserves to remain as a FA. But let's improve it. Here are glitches I picked up at random. Someone else should sift through it, too.

The map: where do the data come from, and who is classified as a "player"? (Membership of amateur clubs? Professional? Back lane? Schools and colleges?) This should be deleted from the Commons immediately unless the uploader can clear this up.

Players are cautioned with a yellow card, and sent off with a red card.

Image under "Laws of the game"—Poor resolution. Caption makes an assertion without supporting evidence, and it's vague and has little relevance to the adjacent section.
Why two images bunched up at the top?
"18 yards (16.5 m) from the goalposts and extending 18 yards (16 m)"—Hello?
This image is really helpful:Tony (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hardly being fast, this has languished here for long enough without comment. In reply to your comments:

I have contacted User:Johan Elisson who uploaded the image.

I have removed the "child image" (The one under "laws of the game") as i agree, it had little relevance to the text.

Moved an image down a section

fixed the convert template to round to 1 in both cases.

The card image serves its purpose, it illustrates a point.

Other reviewers would of course be welcome. Woodym555 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with the map Tony? The image description page clearly says where the data comes from, "[...] data taken from National Geographic June 2006 edition and this FIFA survey." I've done nothing but made a derivate of the map in the NG edition, and where the colour of a certain country was difficult to compare to the legend, I used the FIFA data (which the NG map in turn has used) to double check. The unknown status colours have been calculated based on the FIFA data, as these countries and territories where not included in the NG survey (thus no "No. 1 sport" or "Not No.1 sport"). And for countries and territories which are not included in the FIFA data either, the no data colour has been used. Is there still a problem? – Elisson • T • C • 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up a bit of missing info on the citations;[1] can you all run through them one more time and make sure you've gotten everything? Nice work, once Tony is satisfied, I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just about ready to go. (Sorry I've left this one.) Can we get a source on Ball in and out and Fouls and misconducts (before the last para)? It's generalized and a single ref to a rule book or manual would be fine. Marskell 19:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Oldelpaso 08:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.