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 Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

---

Peru national football team[edit]

Peru national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...it meets the FA criteria. I've spent years working on this article (since 2009), mainly on my spare time; I've immersed myself on the literature, read tons of books on the subject (which was pretty entertaining, to be honest). Aside from old peer reviews (which were of much help) and the aid of IP editors, I have pretty much worked on the article largely by myself. I modeled it after the Scotland national football team article, but I think this article is a good contender to be the new standard (depending on what happens in this FAC). I have tried to copy-edit the article as best as possible, mainly as a result of peer review backlogs and general lack of interest from other editors. I recently got the article Pisco Sour through a FAC, so I have good idea of what is expected and the procedures. If you find any mistakes, or have any improvement suggestions, please give me a chance to fix those things before opposing the nomination. Thanks in advance for reading the work; I hope you enjoy it!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• At a first look I don't understand why does the player tables show up while the World Cup and Copa America are hidden. I strongly suggest to auto-hide the two player tables (and perhaps add a couple of sentences summarizing the more notable recent players) and have unhidden trimmed versions of the records (for the WC just focus on the editions when it qualified, while for the CA one perhaps only on those times when it was in the top 3 or 4). Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comment Nergaal. The current structure is a mixture between the FA Scotland national football team article and some new ideas.

I hid the Copa America & World Cup tables because they made the article seem longer than it actually is. Instead, I decided to use text to describe the more memorable events in the tables (and overall-records as well, but only in the first paragraph of each of those sections).

All football (soccer) articles have the player tables unhidden. I don't want to change that concept (unless everyone else here thinks that s for the best). Based on my experience, IP contributors (who are the ones who constantly update these tables) prefer unhidden player tables.

What I can do is trim the records. However, this is again something I have never seen another football article do...so I'd like to hear further input on this matter before taking action on it.

Good points. I think they are certainly on the idea of "setting a new standard".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu[edit]

Comments – I will post my review in a gradual section-by-section manner, if you don't mind.

• Uniform section – I've made a few changes to this section already, mostly copyediting (see recent edit), but some things still need attention:
  • The English variants "uniform" (American) and "kit" (British) are used interchangeably, when only one should be preponderant per WP:CONSISTENCY.
  • My biggest issue in this section is the use of a personal blog source as major reference; I'm not sure it follows WP:BLOGS. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Stadium section:
  • Same concern about using a blog-type source, even if it's based in what appears to be some kind of higher education institution site.
• Supporters section:
  • Do you antecipate pages being created for the currently red links Peru Campeón and polka criolla? Parutakupiu (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rivalries section:
  • I would move this section after the "Supporters" one, as it fits into the earlier socio-historical portion of the article.
• Before reading the World Cup, Copa América and Olympic record sections, I would recommend nesting them under a "Major competitions record" parent section and then renaming them to just "FIFA World Cup", "Copa América" and "Olympic Games". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another comment to this general section is that the record tables should not be collapsible. The data should be in plain sight and, when collapsed, the table is not straightaway noticeable. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll respond to your points in number format.

1. My decision for using both terms ("uniform" and "kit") was to have a variety of words to play around with (to avoid repetition). Also, from personal experience, the term "kit" is increasingly (if not already commonly) used by the soccer community in the United States. Could they not be considered synonyms?

Yeah, I guess they can. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. I replied to your blog concerns in your talk page, but I will link to them here in case any other reviewer is interested in reading the explanation for the blog sources (see [2] and [3]).
2. Yes, I plan to create articles on both subjects.
3. Yes, I will move the rivalry section below the supporters section. It does make more sense.
4. There seems to have been a change in the WP:FOOTY MoS for national teams (see [4]). I developed this article under the old MoS used for the Scotland national football team article. Although I am not opposed to the new MoS, my view is that the new MoS works better for achievement lists rather than sections with WP:SUMMARY text of larger articles (which, I think, is the case with the Peru article).

I did not know about that MoS guideline, but the fact that the project decised for a change in favour of my suggestion gives it more value. Probably "Achievements" is not the best title (especially for team who have not had notable achievements), hence a more neutral title like the one I suggested could be more suitable to every situation and national team. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall, I appreciate the suggestions up to now. I also like the last point you made (about the structure change), because I think it fits with the objective of making this Peru nft article the "new standard model" for other nft articles. Given this situation, perhaps having a discussion in this FAC's talk page would be good to reach a consensus?

If you think it's an undertaking that could generate a positive feedback, go for it. But I don't think it should in any way hinder this article from reaching the quality necessary for promotion to featured status. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FIFA World Cup section:
  • In the same sentence of portion of prose you provide figures in text format and then in number format. Fix the many occurrences throughout the section.
  • "In the finals, the team hold..." – holds
  • Unlink Mexico in "Mexico 1970 World Cup finals" and Argentina in "Argentina 1978 World Cup finals".
  • Add a period at the end of the image caption.
  • Unlink Budapest, Paris, and Algiers.
  • "(upon returning home)" – Replace parentheses with commas.
• Copa América section:
  • In the same sentence of portion of prose you provide figures in text format and then in number format. Fix the many occurrences throughout the section.
  • "... hosted the tournament..." – I'd change to something like "played as hosts", to avoid repeting the word "tournament".
  • In the part about the player records, I'd replace the parentheses with em-dashes and the square brackets by parentheses.
  • acquired→achieved
  • "Peru ended the first stage as leader of Group 2 in the first stage..."
  • two-game→two-legged
  • "... saw both teams win their respective home games..."
  • "...in Bogota (1–0) and Lima (2–0)..." → "(1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima)". Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Olympic Games section:
  • games→Games
  • "during the controversial 1936 Summer Olympics..."
  • "... became South America's representative to the football tournament in the 1936 Berlin Olympics."
  • "The representatives for the Peruvian team players..."
  • "... but in extra time Peru..." – Add a comma before Peru.
  • Shouldn't the content from Note I deserve inclusion in this section? I think it's too large and detailed to be treated as a mere note. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for the improvements Parutakupiu. I applied all of them except for the last one. The original version I wrote for the section had the detailed post-match situation (Austrian protest & Peruvian response), but it felt trivial when compared with the section's content and the structure of other similar sections (What is relevant to the main text is that Peru left the tournament due to problems outside the pitch; anything additional is worthy of being in a note for extra information). Note length & detail is also not necessarily an issue (I have seen notes in books which are over half a page's length). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • I only noticed it now: the lead says that Peru participated in two Olympic football tournaments, but the second participation (in the 1960 Games) is nowhere to be read in this section. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Notable players section:
  • First of all, I'd move this sub-section to the top, before the squad lists. It's a historical and less mutable section so it should come first, in my opinion.
  • "South America won 0–2, with Cubillas scoring the first goal." – This should be in a different sentence, so replace the preceding semicolon with a period (to close the previous sentence which also runs too long).
• Managers section:
  • Are refs 130 and 131 from a reliable source?
  • Unlink "sports analysts"
  • This section is small and you already give a link to the main list of managers, so I don't think you should have a navbox that, in addition, is shown collapsed by default.
• Fixtures and records section:
  • "Since 1927, Peru has played approximately 545 matches, including friendlies, since 1927;..."
  • Ref 134 is quite odd, I've never seen four sources in a single ref tag. I would say you should add separate ref tags after each corresponding citation, but maybe your solution is valid? I don't know...
  • "... at the Copa America held in Bolivia." – Link "Copa América" to the 1997 tournament article; unlink "Colombia" (in an earlier sentence) and "Bolivia".
  • "... no yellow or red cards in its games."

— Parutakupiu (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for the comments.

1. The common structure for these sections is Current -> Recent -> Notable. However, I personally like your suggestion better.
2. Yes, the Dechalaca.com references are reliable. They have a professional structure to their publishing (see in Spanish), and I find no reason to distrust them. However, some of their articles are guilty of biased opinions (which I usually don't agree with), but that's not unusual.
3. Yes, the ref 134 style is rare. It was suggested during the GA review several years ago, and I have seen other FA articles use it (so it seems valid).

Everything else you pointed out should now be fixed. Thanks!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Why don't you let the competition record tables be visible by default? They are probably one of the most important piece of data for people consulting this page, and their length should not be an issue.
• In the external links section, change the title of the navbox "Finalists" to "World Cup final presences".

— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Length was my primary concern with the tables. I will make them visible.

Yes, I changed the title.

Thank you very much for the heavy copy-editing in the article. It was absolutely awesome to read all of it again.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, happily. I believe this article is adequate shape to achieve featured status. Congrats to the nominator for his work. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Giants2008[edit]

Comments – I haven't read the article in depth yet, but here are a few initial impressions that I have from what I did look at:

• The FIFA Fair Play diploma image isn't needed to understand that they were awarded the honor. Therefore, this image likely doesn't meet the non-free content criteria as far as this article goes.
• I'm also uneasy about the blog that was referred to earlier. It's good that he's apparently a published author, but if there are opportunities to replace some of the uses, I'd suggest doing so. Better to have the most reliable sources possible.
• Check that the page ranges in the refs all have en dashes. I noticed a couple citations without them.
• "A series of staggering victories in the late 1960s". I don't understand the use of "staggering" here. Were they big upsets, as we Americans would say? That sounds more neutral in any case.
• "eliminated only due to a goal difference with Chile." Not sure if non-football fans are going to get this with the current wording. How about "only due to a worse goal difference than Chile" or similar? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments Giants. I'll also reply here with the number list.

1. I also had my doubts about the image, so it is now removed.
2. The current version of the article only has the Pulgar blog used for non-controversial facts. I have checked and no other source covers these topics (particularly the uniform's history). The other blogs are from university professors, and all should also be referencing uncontroversial facts.
3. All page ranges in the refs should now have en dashes. Thank you for pointing this out. :-)
4. The sources (Witzig and FIFA) indicate that Peru's qualification was surprising because Argentina was the clear favorite. Perhaps replacing "staggering" with "unexpected" might do the trick?
5. Yes, I changed the goal difference sentence with your suggestion.

I appreciate the comments. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Giants2008:, I removed the word "staggering". I think that is the best solution for NPOV.

I again checked the blogs. They're all reliable and follow the guidelines per WP:BLOGS. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments -- Open six weeks and quiet for last two, I can't see this nom achieving consensus to promote any time soon, so will be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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