Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F./archive6

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:18, 28 September 2008 [1].

Real Madrid C.F. edit

Nominator(s): –Hadrianos1990 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC (00:59, 14 July 2008)


I nominate this article because I consider it suitable for FA and I worked a lot to improve it. Thank You! Hadrianos1990 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question - are the differences between Image:Real crest2.png and Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg so great that the difference cannot be described with one non-free image and GFDL text? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Non-free images, such as, Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg, should not be in svg format Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Current ref 57 (http://www.metromadrid.es/) should state that the language is spanish. Same for current ref 66 (http://www.lfp.es/historico/primera/clasificaciones/grafico_clasificacion_clubes.asp?cod=01). And same for http://www.marca.com/futbol/especialespartidos0607/realmadrid-barcelona/index.html
  • http://www.g14.com/ would not open for me.
  • What makes http://www.footballdatabase.com/index.php a reliable source?
  • A number of your web page sources lack last access dates (current refs 71, 72)
  • Current ref 74 (Jimmy Burns: Barca a people's passion) is this a book? If so, the title should be in italics, etc. and it needs page numbers.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as BBDO in the references. BBC is well known and doesn't need to be.
  • What makes http://uk.geocities.com/centenariomadrid/00-en.html a reliable source?
    • Source changed to a reliable one.--Hadrianos1990 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which one? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • this "The life of Di Stéfano IV". Realmadrid.com..--KSA13 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAC instructions and avoid the use of graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead could do with a bit more expansion.
Done by Hadrianos1990.
  • Some of the English is a little rusty and could possibly do with a copy edit.
Done, I think this comment related to first comment of Giants2008 below.
  • I think you need to make it obvious in the text that Real Madrid are known as "The Whites" before you use it first time. Otherwise it's a bit jargony.
It's in infobox Football club (Nickname section).
  • Is it Raúl or Raúl Gonzalez? Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Comments - Being from Carabanchel and an Atlético de Madrid fan, perhaps I am biased ( ;) ), but IMO the lead needs expansion. Otherwise, I'm glad that La Liga finally has a team going through FAC. I have plans on working on the Atlético article, so I will take this one as inspiration (although, I still need to purchase the only written source I can find). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank that kind of you and about the lead, it's done. Good luck.--KSA13 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's improved from its last visit here, but there is still work to be done. A lot of issues in the first few sections.

  • About half the references are to the club's official site, and much of the history section is sourced to this primary source. I have POV concerns about some statements, including "which included the memorable 7-3 Hampden Park final against Eintracht Frankfurt in 1960." and "started to dominate Spanish football" in the 1980s.
Resolved.
  • I normally don't say much on pictures, but there are major problems here. The 1902 team pictures lacks author and date; the latter is necessary to prove its public domain status. I'm not sure about the 1925 photo either, though I'm admittedly not an image expert. A couple other pictures (the first stadium picture and the club president's photo) could use more description in their summaries, including the user names of the uploaders; there are templates that can help with this.
Done.
  • "seventeen Copa del Rey" needs something after it, like championships. Don't use titles again, though.
Done.
  • "The club is the Spain's most successful team, having won a total of 57 trophies." Multiple problems here. Second the needs to be removed. The 57 trophies is their domestic total, which needs to be made clearer.
Resolved by Hadrianos1990.
  • The previous reviewers are right on about the lead. A topic as broad as a major European soccer (American here) club deserves a four-paragraph lead. Even the current second and third paragraphs aren't that big. Not much on the club's history in there.
I think it's done.
  • History: "In 1929, the First Spanish football League was founded." Check the capitalization.
Done.
  • "Real Madrid had the lead going into the last match of the season, but the loss to Athletic Bilbao at San Mamés kept Madrid from winning the title." Should be "a loss to Athletic Bilbao..." as it reads now like we're expected to know that beforehand.
Done, thanks.
  • "It was under Bernabéu's guidance that Real Madrid became established as a major force in both Spanish and European football." How about "established itself" instead?
Done, thanks.
  • No need to pipe European Cup Winners' Cup. The apostrophe is correct here.

Still needs quite a bit of work. I'll stop here because these issues, especially the first two and the lead, will take quite a bit of time to fix. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't here when Chelsea got promoted and am not worried about what that article is like for this review (an FAR review would be a different story). My concerns are the issues with this article. I was going to review more now, but am going to hold off because the reference formatting is completely messed up. Somehow, there are now two sections of references; please fix this. Also, there are three citation errors indicated by red tags, which may be caused by the split. I still see too many primary sources, and another thing: why are the books in Further reading not used as sources? They would be great for the history section. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Many red links and recetism in history's article. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I just found 3 red links and they removed. But about history's article, we talk here about main article. So, history's article will be improving later.--KSA13 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the history section is a summary of the History article (History of bla, bla, bla..., part of the main article) and that have recentism (more info in "Florentino Pérez years" than "Quinta del Buitre years"), IMHO, the main article can not be a featured article... --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the History section suffers of recentism, why don't you check another history section of a featured article (like Chelsea F.C.)?(Now THAT is recentism)Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Real Madrid, not Chelsea (have also recentism in History's chapter)... --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither FA, nor GA should have non-free image gallerys, such as Real_Madrid_C.F.#Crest Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, what about Chelsea F.C. (which is a featured article) crest section?Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FA only really applies to the article, at the particular time the candidacy is being considered, which is why we have WP:FAR, in case a featured article has subsequently fallen below the standard since the original assessment. I shall take measures to have the gallery removed, and if that is unsuccessful, the article will be taken to WP:FAR.

Comment - I don't want to be rude but I see that those who are engaged do their "best" to make this superb article remain just a good one. I have a question: Why Chelsea F.C. is a featured article? Because is about an English football team? How about this:

- Chelsea's lead paragraph is too short

- Chelsea's history section suffers of severe recentism

- Chelsea's crest section has a non-free image gallery

And these are just a few observations...So, the engaged ones, just be professionalists, not subjectivs. If this article should not be a featured one, then Chelsea f.c. shouldn't be neighter.Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Real_Madrid_C.F./archive6&oldid=1138469823"