Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FC Steaua Bucharest/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 18:19, 26 January 2008.
FC Steaua Bucharest edit
I'm nominating this article for featured article because i think it meets all the FA criteria and i hope that the second time will be more succesfull. Mario1987 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It Fulfills all the FA criteria,it is a documented article and very often updated with the latest news regarding the rosters, great job ! Adrianzax (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Agreed that it get's FA done. Basketball110 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- The lead needs extending per WP:LEAD
- There are a few WP:MOS matters needing addressing particularly the dates for the past managers. The dashes certainly need changing to endashes, and I'd be tempted to convert the months into their names or ditch altogether, i.e. August 1948 – July 1949 or 1948 – 1949
- Some of the English is a bit awkward. I think it needs a bit of a copy-edit in places.
- It certainly needs a few references, one that jumped out was the claim about crowd turbulence. Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object mostly per my old GA review (failed) which still stands
- Lead is too short
- Article is mostly self sourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- English is not up to scratch
- Bit about racism needs sourcing to not libel the club
- Nothing about the administration of the club
- History is slightly recentist. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Blnguyen. The lead needs to be developed, to the extent that will be able to serve as a standalone summary of the entire article. The article has some issues with primary sources. There are two books listed in the reference section. Why haven't they been used in the article so far? You could remove some of the non-English references (not mandatory, but I think it's something you should do) and replace them with the English and non-English book sources. The owners of the club need to be mentioned in the article, as well. I haven't read the article in its entirety, but I feel it needs a thorough copyedit. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Seems to have a few issues, the lead is too short and the style of writing needs improvement. I like the use of images in the article, seems like a fair amount of sourcing but that can also be improved. Also the fact that almost 3/4 of the article are lists and templates. It is an OK article but was probably nominated prematurely.--The Dominator (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a heads-up: Mario1987 left messages on eight user talk pages about this FAC. The first two supporters were recipients of Mario1987's message. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose clearly premature, lead is inadequate and grammar issues - "its" and "their" seem to be used at random, often changing from one to the other in the same sentence - including in the lead. And what does The all-present star motif on the crest finally had its saying over the new name of Steaua as up 1961 mean? Did the first supporters actually read the article. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address significant dead links: Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for all the reasons mentioned above. Specifically...
- Lead too short.
- Image:Steaua.png has some template issues.
- Poor English - e.g. "the first Romanian team to enterprise a tournament in England".. not sure what this means at all, or "Because of his controversial character, he has been contested by the majority of Steaua fans..."??
- Some citations in the wrong place.
- Far too many really short paragraphs. The flow needs a lot of work.
- Dates need consistency.
- Move history subs-section of Honours into a Seasons article (it's not actually honours, is it? It's all season results)
- "eighth finals"?
- External links need to be trimmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—1a. If you want specific examples, please ask me. A thorough copy-edit is required. Tony (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.