This page has been exceptionally fixed up since its initial nomination was rejected. References have come into top citing quality and are used consistently throughout the article. The prose has beel also largely reviewed and copyedited, making it up to a notable FA standard of engaging. A consensus has been agreed that this article covers pretty much everything eligible in regards to the national team, most of it being introduced in the lead section and then expanded on later in the article. A lot of interesting factual information is provided, somewhat differed to the basic information only provided in other national team pages. Images are clearly used and follow the copyright regulations, and the page is completely free. The quality of this article is a fair nomination for featured content, and hence this nomination. Based on the previous peer review and rejections, there has been even further modification of this page and hence this finally submitted version. Domiy (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Many references are missing author information; please provide it wherever available. Also, websites/TV channels (eg. BBC News) shouldn't be in italics (in ref publishers) per MOS:ITALICS. —Giggy 11:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Opposed until this is dealt with, for the record. —Giggy 10:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: some of the citations/references come after commas, and some come before commas. Consistency is preferred. I also think that wrong dashes are used in scorelines (see wp:dash?). Manderiko (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've already been over the dashes thing. It is identical to what you will find in scorelines of any other team page, including the Scotland national football team which is a Featured Article. This was raised before, but its been fixed up now. This is how dashes are supposed to be used, or at least are already used by other team pages.
Didnt really notice the author from references is needed. I didnt really see it in other articles and it was specified to be needed, only the dates and publishers were. Just wanted to clear these things up before any negative thought is put towards it. Domiy (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Always give author when it's known. All bibliographic information should be listed when its known.
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Sources looked okay. I wasn't able to check the reliablity of the non-English souces. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - It has improved since the previous FAC, but more work needs to be done.
I agree with the previous reviewers on the sources. The blogs and fan sites should be replaced, and authors should be added where needed.
"Croatia won the game 2-0 at the A. Le Coq Arena in Tallinn." Hyphen should be changed to an en dash.
FIFA is linked five times. It only needs linking once in the lead and once at the start of History. Please check for overlinking throughout the article.
I noticed POV complaints on the talk page related to the Supporters section, so I took a look at that. I wan't happy with what I found.
"Nonetheless, such disparities are absent from Croatia's overall national performance." Says who?
"Throughout their presence at major tournaments over the years, the Croatian fans have become the centre of harshly accused racist behaviour." Harshly accused? This is glaring POV. It's also contradicted in the following sentences.
"During Croatia's famous win at the new Wembley stadium (should be capitalized) in 2007, their supporters were favored for their constant involvement and spirit for the team." Famous can also be considered POV. There are a few other occurances throughout the page.
"A large emphasis soon occured surrounding the criticism of the English fans who, despite having a clear numerical home advantage, were over-volumed (?) by the 6000 or so away fans." The criticism needs a reference.
In Stadium, remove 2000 and 2006 links; stand-alone years should not be linked.
"having missed out on only one major tournament since their eligible participation." I think this means "since they became eligible to participate."
Wembley Stadium should be capitalized, as I said earlier. I see this in the lead.
These suggestions will help, but more improvements are needed. My best advice for you is to continue bringing in outside editors for assistance. The more people helping, the better. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK Thanks a lot for that Giants2008. I'm sorry for those minor blemishes. But there are some things I have opposition to. I'll start with Ealdgyth.
BecomeACroatiafan.com is, in fairness, a fan site. However, it has been established as a reliable news delivery. As I said previously, there would be a big difference between using it for a major claim that needs a source (eg - Croatia are neutrally admired or their players are being chased by many clubs etc etc), or using it for a simple factual backup like I have in the article. BecomeACroatiafan.com is only used in some very basic information which I have literally had no luck finding elsewhere (as you should know, Croatia is not a very public or popular country. This needs to be taken into consideration! Finding sources on them are getting more and more difficult!). Likewise, they deliver basic stories and have been used to reference some very basic historical information that any football fan should know.
GOAL.com? A consensus was reached on this on the talk page for the wikiproject footy. At least from what I remember. The question would be, what doesn't make them a reliable source? They publish news stories just like anyone else. Whats the difference between them or BBC/Sky Sports? Both publish news stories on the same thing (and it 99% of cases, their stories are very identical!).
Same goes for Javno. While there may be arguments over the fansite mentioned previously, Javno is established as one of the leading news websites in Croatia. The only publishers in front of them are VecernjiList, but they rarely publish sport.
RSSF is also used on the Scotish team page. Again, what doesn't make it reliable? Its an accurate statistics foundation website. I think you need to calm down with the reference criticism. Just because a site does not lead to Sky Sports or BBC, it doesnt mean its any less reliable.
But those deadlinks are a big surprise. I will do my best to fix those up because I didnt know about them.
"Nonetheless, such disparities are absent from Croatia's overall national performance." Says who? - In fairness again, says the fact there are no clashes between the same fans at the national team games. This is a very extreme issue, I wouldnt expect any news site with half decency to publish something like this. Its another basic fact. Though there are clashes between the fans at domestic club games, there has never been any such incident between them when the national team plays. Again, you need to consider the difficulty of finding articles related to such. On top of the fact that this is a very rare and extreme subject, its another one based on Croatia, a very small and unknown country yet to be established.
But as per previously, everything else you said has a decent point which I did not see. I'll do my best to fix them up now, anyone else feel free to add more opposing or supporting comments. Domiy (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that if it's proving too hard to find a reliable source for a statement then it's OK to leave it unreferenced or use an unreliable source. This is nonsense, if you can't find a reliable source for a statement then you must take it out completely. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats not exactly what I'm saying. I can see how it may sound that way. But you have to firstly consider that they are very basic statements. The only reason I initially put refs in there is because of the standard criteria for Featured Articles. But for things like "Dario Simic has made 99 caps" or "Croatia have many national hymns for the team" to need a reference is kind of extreme anyway. They are every basic facts that you dont need a news article to tell you. Furthermore, it should work on a merit that any source is provided for them. Seriously, they are so simple, they should and could be mentioned without refs. If youre going to ask for references on everything said in the article, then go look at all the other articles on wikipedia and diminish their quality because I'm certain that not even the best article on this site has a reference for every single statement. Domiy (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's very simple really, WP:WIAFA says that "claims [must be] verifiable against reliable sources" and I think you will find that most existing Featured Articles do indeed have a reference for every statement. Take a look for example at Duncan Edwards - every single sentence in the body of the article has at least one reference. I think you'll seriously struggle to convince anyone that things like "player X has this number of caps" are "so basic they don't need referencing"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Problems with POV, peacock terms, poor English. A read of many of the references provided will show they are being misinterpreted. Still needs a ton of work. Wiggy! (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The flag of Croatia (or any nation) image DOES NOT represent national teams. It only represents the origin of the team, but specifically related to football and the Croatian team, that is the only appropriate image you could display. I too have a question then. 1) Whats wrong with this badge symbol anyway? The upload page specifically states it under free and fair use following strict regulations. And 2) If there are this many hassles about this article, I really dont see how Scotland national football team became a Featured Article. Where the regulations of criteria much less strict back then or what? All I've been hearing is defects that clearly also exist on the Scottish team page as well, yet it has managed to make Featured Article content. Really, why is this (or other specific cases) being treated so differently? Domiy (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If the crest is free, then it should be tagged as such, if it is fair use then efforts should be made to avoid it's use, and if possible replaced it should be replaced with a free alternative, if a flag is good enough for FIFA/UEFA, then why is it not good enough for WP?
You shouldnt get so hung up on WP:WAX, constructive criticisms should be welcomed, and used to improve the article. If you feel the Scotland article fails FA, then you can take it to the FA review Fasach Nua (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
We've been through this before and it did not go your way. You're flogging a dead horse with uselessly rhetorical questions. Leave the man be to (legitimately) use the federation crest to (legitimately) represent the national club. If he needs help with properly tagging the thing, then you might constructively do that. Wiggy! (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The question is only rhetorical is no-one chooses to answer it! Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe I should have described it then as vexatious or tendentious. The point being its an unnecessary challenge and not in anyway helpful. Just leave it go. Wiggy! (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
oppose inappropriate use of images Fasach Nua (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THE NOMINATION. WIGGY FIXED UP THE PROBLEMS WITH ENGLISH SO CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG, THE ONLY THING WRONG NOW IS THE REFERENCES FIXUP? Domiy (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Patience, Domiy. I think it still has a ways to go. I've only made a couple small patches. Wiggy! (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Domiy, have you been to the club home page? There seems to be some material there that covers the early 20th century. Wiggy! (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I would also like a verifiable source of the team photo used, it looks suspiciously like a copyvio Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK my memory and knowledge is not too great on copyright but if I remember correctly from reading the regulations, is it not acceptable to use an image that is of such age? I remember hearing that if the copyright holder has been dead for a while, or the overall media itself is from an outdated time, then there is no copyright law on it? I'm sure that whoever took the photo in the 1940s is long dead by now, unless it was taken by a 1 year old kid who is now only 69 years old and has held his age very well and still holds copyright on the photo. I'm pretty sure we can all rule out that possibility, so there should be no further issues with this photo from the 1940s. Besides, I didnt even upload it. It was taken from the Croatian page of the national football team on wikipedia. Even so, if somebody still did own this photo (extremely unlikely), there is the larger possibility that it is released under free use etc. Again, it is used on the Croatian version of the page so I would assume somebody from Croatia uploaded it. Based on it's rareness, it was probably somebody who has obtained rights that it can be used on wikipedia, or he himself is the holder of the photo. Domiy (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the law in Croatia, but in the UK (and I believe a number of other European countries) an image retains copyright for 70 years from when the photographer dies, or if the photographer's identity is unknown, 70 years from when it was taken. Clearly neither of these terms has expired in the case of this picture. Statements like "there is the larger possibility that it [may have been] released under free use etc." and "it was probably somebody who has obtained rights" show that you're just guessing at the copyright status of the image..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The image should be free in the country of origin and the US (where the WP servers are) Fasach Nua (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Domiy, have you been to the club home page? There seems to be some material there that covers the early 20th century. Wiggy! (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.