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 promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Scotland national football team[edit]

previous FAC

I probably hail from the wrong side of Hadrian's Wall to be nominating this, but here goes. This article had an FAC a couple of months back, which failed but had a number of useful comments. I've attempted to address the issues raised, and hopefully they have now been resolved. Oldelpaso 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Oppose~~Support Nothing about there crest. Buc 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small amount. As the crest is based upon national symbols of Scotland there's not that much to say; to go into much depth would involve regurgitating parts of Royal Standard of Scotland and other heraldry articles, and risk going off-topic. Oldelpaso 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok looks good now to be the first national football team article to gain featured status. Buc 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The players section seems very bare with only coverage of the current squad. A solution might be to copy the approach to this section in France national rugby union team, merging in the information from records. If there are some other notable players who do not technically hold a record, then they might deserve a mention - Archie Gemmill, perhaps? Or some members of the Scottish Sports Hall of Fame? Other notes: Selection committee and select committee in Managers - should both be selection? The 2nd para of the lead could happily be merged with the first, I think, so it's not a single-sentence paragraph? J.Winklethorpe ^talk 09:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I notice that Arsenal F.C. has the same approach to the players section, so I'll withdraw that. I'd say that the Arsenal F.C.#Statistics and records section is better expanded than the Scottish one, and it's written in a less bare style. Non-player records, such as attendance, might be a good addition. I prefer the Arsenal organisation of sections, with the table- and stat-heavy sections placed at the bottom. Also, no need to wikilink in the quote in Colours, per WP:MOSQUOTE. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the records section was a bit thin. I've added more material, but not members of the Scottish Sports Hall of Fame as it is not specified whether they were inducted for achievements at club level or international level. This might leave the section a little dry in tone; I've attempted to use the paragraph about the world record attendance to alleviate this. Organisation of sections is perhaps a matter of personal preference. I've moved the Colours section up, but I'm mindful of treating the lists like appendices. Oldelpaso 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further detail seems better. Colours is much better there now. I'd personally move Records to above players, but as you say, it's a matter of preference - it doesn't detract from the article. Oh, and I'd agree with The Rambling Man about the merge suggestion. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is a very well written article and rarely goes off topic. Also, it has improved by a substantial margin since its last FAN. WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a few things to comment about before I'll support the promotion of the article. Watch this space...
- Done Clearly the merge suggestion has to be resolved, it looks likely to be speedy oppose as far as I'm concerned though.
- Ensure all references comply with positioning per WP:CITE, e.g. [8].
  - Double check - [43] isn't quite right, there may be more...
- Done Citation of results in the lead isn't consistent - cite all or none (which is acceptable as long as they're expanded upon in the article and cited there).
- Done I don't like overwikilinking, say Dalglish in the infobox.
- Done I think that there's no need to have spaces in scorelines, so 11–0 instead of 11 – 0, check the infobox.
- Done Avoid text in parentheses, absorb it into the prose.
- Done Colours section has only a single citation.
- Done DoB - can we just use Date of birth?
- Done You can drop the century for year ranges, so 1960–1965 can be written 1960–65.

I think I've corrected all of those. No doubt you'll set me straight if I haven't. Oldelpaso 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for the moment, hopefully it's of use. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a citation for "At the Olympic Games, the IOC only recognises the United Kingdom."? Other than that I think we're nearly done and ready for me to support. The Rambling Man 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also doublechecked the ref positioning. Oldelpaso 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work, well done. The Rambling Man 11:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm pleased to see that the issue I raised at the last FAN has been resolved. Thank you. Lurker (said · done) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. COME ON SCOTLAND! THOSE LITHUANIANS ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING DIVING CHEATS! No, seriously, it's well-written, well-referenced, neutral, and as far as I can see meets all the FA criteria. I skimmed over it and I didn't see anything that I'd find objectionable in terms of the featured article criteria.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as HisSpaceResearch says, I don't see anything objectionable. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (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.