Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FC Barcelona/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:47, 16 April 2010 [1].
FC Barcelona edit
FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article: it has recently been through a peer-review (13 March) and successfully promoted to GA (14 April), so I feel it is ready to meet the nit-picking of a FAC. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
A dab link to Enrique Piñeyro; no dead external links. Ucucha 12:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Dab solved. Sandman888 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is File:FCB.svg used in this article? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- rationale is given in file description. Sandman888 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
alt text is needed for the images; ref #17 [Fritz, Barend (et al) (1999). Ajax, Barcelona, Cruyff. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. ISBN 0747543054], needs a page number(s);foreign language sources should state (in Spanis) or (in Catalan) as appropriate (refs #7, 31) ;- AFAIK alt text is no longer a criteria.
- Ah, I didn't know that! It has disappered from the FAC, I wondfer why?
Ref #7 is in english- OK, I should have checked.
no #31 chg.- finding pagenumber.
- Sandman888 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK alt text is no longer a criteria.
- Oppose. A number of fundamental concers, sorry:
- Limited sourcing. At times, entire paragraphs, and multiple paragraphs at a time, go without inline citations.
- Not a comprehensive review of the literature. A Gbooks search shows many sources, both in English and Spanish, that do not appear to have been consulted. This is an important criterion: without a comprehensive review of the sources we don't have a comprehensive article. For example, this 320 page book seems like an obvious source. This is perhaps reflective of a number of matters: the article does not tell us any detail about the club's membership or structure or its finances.
- Unreliable sourcing, including significant use of the club's own website. Some degree of self-published sourcing may be acceptable for uncontroversial facts, but this article does it too much for a FA.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: please resolve sourcing concerns before bringing article back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get 9 hours to respond to critique? Is this really normal FAC policy? Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.