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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2016 [1].

Belgium national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the national association football (or soccer) team of Belgium, more specifically the senior men's team. I believe it should be featured because of the broad scope and the high care given to sourcing, prose and illustrations. Comments of independent editors were "[g]ood work", "quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this" and "excellent, thorough and widely comprehensive". After it obtained GA status, a double peer review and copy editing by members of the GOCE (among others) lead to further prose improvement. Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need to link to Brazil and West Germany national teams at first mention in body of text.
Good point, I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Through the History section, a sprinkling of notes on key players at various periods would be good. I'd incorporate the notable players section into the chronology.
That was also what I had done before. However, this greatly expands the History section and I think it gives the reader less appetite to keep reading through it. On the reverse, it is a lot easier to find things about the team as a whole, and about notable players if you have these sections apart. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok more of a style thing and not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a traditional predominance of either french or flemish speaking players?
Irrelevant IMO, but probably a Flemish speaking majority most often since most (roughly 60%) Belgians live in Flanders. In the 1980s and 1990s most well-known players were Flemish speaking, except for Michel Preud'homme, Philippe Albert and Enzo Scifo. Note that some notable players have been from Brussels and accordingly are pretty much bilangual (Van Himst, Kompany, Lukaku). Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good remark in order to shift the article towards more balance, Dweller. I want to stress that originally the 1920-1979 period took three paragraphs and it was stuffed with multiple sentences on notable players. However, the situation is what it is, and to compensate for it I think it would be good that I would (among others) add another sentence illustrating the "world champion of the friendlies" nickname in the 1970s, and further squeeze the 2002-2012 underachievement years. Do you have suggestions for other interesting things to mention for the 1920-1979 period? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already made it more equilibrated now, but feel free to give additional comments or to carry on materials that you might find relevant for the 1920-1979 era. Kareldorado (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, thanks. I've not reviewed thoroughly enough to support, but I have no issues with the nomination. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more, and therefore I hope this review also attracts 'less interested' people, in the sense that they are not specifically interested in football or sports. Other people can provide fresh views, however, I feel lucky that editors like you can also still provide new insights. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I opted for moving over this part into the "Mascot and logo"-sect as the nickname served 3 of 4 times as inspiration for the logo; since every mascot was also a logo I made it "Nickname and logo". Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is already clearly mentioned in the lead and the rivalries section (where it is stated that these were cup matches) - dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not necessarily a rhetorical question; note that there have been other events in which multiple sportsmen died that were considered noteworthy (see Munich air disaster and Munich massacre). If many more - say, 10 - national team members had died, it probably would have been more notable. Since it seems very likely that similar numbers of casualties due to wars happened to other sports teams as well, I must agree that this sentence was probably not that important, so I dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I dropped them... what's your opinion on the "Competitive record" sections - would you leave out most scores there as well? Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that important, I simply wanted to show that this mock title was not just an inside joke of Belgians, but that it was also used elsewhere. I dropped the sentence part now and kept the source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the painful thing is that sometimes there is simply not an exciting story to be told instead... so then I am stuck with mentioning results. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partially done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are the thoughts I have in mind at the moment. I hope they are not too much! Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 08:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are not few but I welcome every constructive remark! I am not sure I can make every adaptation this weekend, but we will see. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great! Good job Karel. Remember that you can always continue to improve the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and good job. If you can indicate some of the sentences that still appear to be rather long, I'll give it a try to further cut them down. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- Hi Kareldorado, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC? A belated welcome in that case! It looks to me that we still need:

These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or one or two of the reviewers above might be able to oblige... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to point this out. I have been more busy last week irl, but in upcoming couple of days I will do the request. Kareldorado (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate your view and - partly - agree. The fact that they work more behind the scenes does not mean that their role is trivial, however. A podiatrist is a orthopedical physician, and because of that function seems notable. Wilmots stressed the importance of his analyst at some moments. However, I did not add staff that 'merely' fulfill an administrative function, like the makers of T-shirts and PR-representatives. I stand open for discussion, however, and am willing to drop these staff. Any other people's views? Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we need for medical personnel to get their own table, nor the need to list seven people here, most of whom the public has never heard of. The fact that the only cite here is to the RBFA website and not to any reliable independent secondary source is telling. Are there reliable independent secondary sources discussing how important these people are to the team's success? I am, however, like you, interested in others' views on this topic. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the table has been removed. That resolves my concern on this issue. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what I oppose is that probably many readers are not fans of scrolling and keeping on scrolling. These tables won't get shorter, it will be the opposite. The tables are good and made with the needed detail, however, they would explode the visual size and the weight of numbers and statistics if expanded, IMO. Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we don't want all these tables displayed fully here, as that would lead to a lot of clutter. However, I don't like the current red boxes on the page, they seem a bit of an eyesore to me. One option would be to list the World Cup table in full, but erase the other tables completely and put them on the linked pages. These are just my suggestions on how to improve, and I don't feel strongly, so if you think it's best left the way it is, so be it. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image Licensing Review
Thanks; licenses have been added and the bibliography stands apart now. Kareldorado (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from edwininlondon[edit]

I enjoyed finding out facts about the team. And a team that ranks number one surely deserves a featured article. A few comments about the lead:

I agree, put a better alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin, do you mean both the translation of the official name and the nickname?. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, why tell the user the translations? This is the English wikipedia. I don't see any other similar article doing this. Peru national football team does not give the Spanish. Say I would could footnote B altogether. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but several featured football team articles do mention it. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, just leave it then. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree and kept the core items. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later, once I've got my football bible, The Ball is Round, in front of me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you enjoyed reading it, I now enjoy receiving these justified comments, Edwin. Upcoming week (and as soon as possible irl) I will try to apply and/or comment to all of these remarks and suggestions. I am also looking forward to your fresh input based on your football bible. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've made minor changes already, as you may have noticed, hope you agreed with those, and here are my comments for remainder of the article. My main concern is about links. Sorry, but I just feel strongly about having good links, as unpredictable links damage WP's overall user experience as well. I'll explain below:

Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for both reasons. Kareldorado (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a long explanation about the Red Devils just before saying "the first manager of the Red Devils"... I will re-introduce that info in a short sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not really an article about the Belgium NFT in the media. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot defend this claim, so I dropped it now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it sounded a bit odd, so I tried to make it more logical saying the commentaries are provided in both languages. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily odd, but at least not clear enough - one might think of support in the financial or medical meaning or so, so I also opt for "Supporters". Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True; the article describes him as someone who systematically applied it and a perfectionist but he did not necessarily invent the tactic or made it perfect either, so I rephrased it. Kareldorado (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I mentioned him now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has been debate about this, but I also think these are the very core figures of the staff, so I followed your suggestion. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. I will try to make sure that every quote with " " will be accompanied by the person to have said so. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first meaning; I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out this convertor, I didn't know that this switch could be made easily. Kareldorado (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked the sources. If no one else does, I could, if you'd like me to. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, from tomorrow on I can try to solve multiple issues a day. We can await the demand for source checking at the Talk page a couple more days - you did already an incredible effort - but else, yes, you'd be welcome to do so. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

This is a difficult one. The second source mentions the first source to have mentioned it (naming the book with author and title). However, I don't have access to the 1978 book itself... Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is simple: these are pages from the books that are mentioned (and can be accessed through the links), but for some reason the page numbers are not visible or made unvisible. A quick search with Ctrl+F (or readthrough in case of a single page) can lead to the quote. Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem as the previous. Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need a fair amount of work to properly formatted with the missing information. --Laser brain (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check

It used to be the good link, but apparently it was not a permanent link to the article - I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that a large number of the sources are in Dutch and I can't check them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch source spot check

I replaced it with the article stating that he prolongs his contract until 2018. Kareldorado (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kareldorado (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally correct, so I omitted "only". Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Via this page, easily pictures can be looked up showing the jerseys the Belgian team wore in several years. Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is sufficient. I think the guidelines say the article should do the hard work, not the reader. Are there any other sources you have used in this way? I noticed that 77,Historical Football Kits, is also not giving me Belgium kits. I had to click Euro 2016 and then search for Belgium to get to it. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Even though this is an experienced journalist, other sources prove him wrong about the skip from Diadora to Nike (in 1999). It is not certain whether Admiral already had a contract with the RBFA in 1980, but what's sure is that the team didn't play in Admiral shirts yet in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we can't use this source to back up the 1991, need the other sources. Maybe also add a footnote to explain conflict in sources? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, done. Kareldorado (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm sorry, but I have to regretfully oppose for now. I have uncovered a lot of issues with the prose and grammar and the formatting and reliability of some refs is in question for me. Maybe it's best the article gets a copyedit and is re-nominated thereafter. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- while some of the points above re. expression are arguable, there are enough concerns raised at this late stage of proceedings that I think we need to call a halt and sort them out away from FAC; you can renominate after a minimum of two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More