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 01:59, 24 July 2007.

---

Scotland national football team[edit]

Self-nomination: I've been editing this article since I started contributing to Wikipedia a couple of years ago and have come to the point where I think it is worth a nomination at FAC. It went through a peer review fairly recently and I think most of the issues raised then and subsequently have been addressed. I believe it meets all the featured article criteria. Kanaye 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Looks pretty good to me. My only minor gripe would be that the article is a bit listy; but as that seems to be the case for most football-related articles I wouldn't say it's a major problem. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - this article is good but not good enough, yet:
  • Most importantly, the article uses only one freely-licensed images, compared to four fair-use ones.
  • Doesn't the Tartan Army phrase refer to the fans more than the team itself?>
  • "Wembley Wizards" perhaps important, but the sentence as it stands sticks out like a sore thumb.
  • Perhaps should be explained why Scotland did not play in a World Cup until 1954 (especially the no-show in 1950)
  • Scotland winger Jim Baxter, famously, played "Keepie uppie" during the game as he tormented the English players by juggling the ball at walking pace. is not very encyclopaedically written. Also phrases such as crashed out (used later on) should be avoided.
  • While the 1978 World Cup was important it does not deserve four whole paragraphs - this could be merged down to two.
  • Vogts' reign was disastrous and the team plummeted in the FIFA World Rankings - more unencylopaedic tone, framed in inherently POV language. Instead spell out what happened (briefly) - how many places did they fall?
  • The record Scottish Cup final attendance need not be included here as they are not relevant to the Scottish national side.
  • The supporters section could do with being a bit longer, I feel.
  • I would prefer to split the top scorers and appearances off into a separate article e.g. Scotland national football team records (which could also deal with record scorelines, attendances etc.) and replaced with prose. This perhaps would make the article less listy as well.
  • Perhaps a history of the team's colours as well, like most club articles? Even a short section would be good, I feel. Qwghlm 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply
  • They all have solid fair-use rationale. I'm not an expert on the use of images but I don't really see the problem.
  • It mainly refers to the supporters but is also used for the team. I could add a reference if needed.
  • Binned.
  • Expanded the World Cup record section to include relevant information.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Removed.
  • What specifically would you like to see included?
  • The article is no more listy than Everton F.C. or Norwich City F.C., which are both featured. Could prose realistically communicate as much information as the tables already do?
  • I'm not sure there's much to be said on strip colour. The WikiProject manual of style is silent on the issue. Kanaye 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments:
  • Just the one free image compared to four non-free isn't good enough for a featured article, in my opinion. I feel the Kirin Cup is not a significant enough event to warrant the use of a fair-use image either - they should only be used in exceptional circumstances (Gemmill's goal and the 1967 victory over England meet this criterion).Finding other free images to add in is the other - Creative Commons-licenced photos of players or managers, or a photo of the Tartan Army, would help redress the balance as well. Flickr is a good resource to start looking, as are other Wikipedia pages.
  • A footnote & reference for the Tartan Army nickname would be a good thing. As it stands this article somewhat contradicts the Tartan Army article, which doesn't mention it at all in the lead and says the usage as it applied to the team is controversial.
  • I count five lists (excluding squad) for this article, as compared to four for both the Everton and Norwich ones :). It was just a suggestion and not a deal-breaker, I just envisaged something along the lines of Arsenal F.C.#Statistics and records, which looks nicer in a prose-style article like this.
  • Never mind about the supporters section. I think a photo however (see above) would improve it, and would not be that hard to find.
  • I am perhaps following the manual of style for clubs instead of national teams. That said, it is possible to wax on at length about the England strip. If Scotland really have just played in navy for their entire existence it might be too boring for inclusion - but there have been plenty of variations on the strip (the white pinstripe version for example, or the Umbro diamonds on the sleeves in the 70s) and also variety in the away kits as well.
• In summary - the first two are deal breakers and need to be sorted. The other three are not but are desirable in my opinion. Qwghlm 09:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply
  • "Tartan Army" nickname has been cited.
  • Added free image to supporters section.
  • Deleted the Kirin Cup picture.
  • I agree with your other recommendations and will add them duly, but they will likely take a while to implement and I don't feel the current article is deficient without them. Kanaye 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply The Wembley Wizards match is significant because it is the only game from Scotland's first 80 years that is remembered as anything more than a statistic. It is the only single football match I know of that has its own Wikipedia article. What was it about the sentence that made it "stick out like a sore thumb"? And how could the match be mentioned differently without going into too much detail? Conval 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just didn't flow with the rest of the paragraph at all, in my opinion, but I have no objection to its inclusion as long as it reads well. Qwghlm 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply I have put in another version of this sentence which is less abrupt and hopefully reads smoother. Please take a look and see what you think. If you still think it jars, be ruthless in saying so. It would be a shame not to mention the Wembley Wizards: but it is not worth losing FAC status over it. Conval 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment about images I thought images, free or otherwise, or indeed a lack of images entirely, played no part in the Featured Article criteria? (other than those that are already there are being used correctly - no replaceable fair use etc.) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FACR does not stipulate how many images have to be freely-licenced, but I would say to have an article dominated by unfree fair-use images, when it is possible to include freely-licenced ones as well, runs against the spirit of Wikipedia. In this particular case, it is almost certainly possible to get a picture of the Tartan Army, and probably a picture of the team playing a recent match, or a famous player or manager at e.g. an autograph & photo session, that can be appropriately CC- or GFDL-licenced and used, and help redress the balance. Qwghlm 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Colours section mentions alternative colours used previously, but does not actually describe the colours usually worn, other than as an aside introducing the Rosebery colours. Oldelpaso 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a few sentences to the Colours section to readdress the balance. All of Qwghlm's recommendations have also been implemented. Kanaye 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Points above look to have been addressed. Oldelpaso 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thought I'd hold off 'til people had looked over and raised any issues; nothing major turned up and everything was satisfactorialy addressed, so this nom has my full support! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I don't object to the remaining fair use images. I do think the photograph of Hampden park looks, frankly, weird. Lurker 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you elaborate on that? What do you consider to be weird about it? Kanaye 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks distorted to me, and doesn't have the perspective usually found in panoramic photographs Lurker 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree, I think the picture looks good, illustrates the stadium well and generally works well with the rest of the article. Kanaye 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see what Lurker means, but images of this type (inside of football stadiums) seem to invariably look like that, even in glossy magazines, so I believe it is an unnavoidable problem and will only change my stance on this if someone can show me a comparable image which isn't slightly distorted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll leave it up to others to decide. I just don't see it as being an issue. Kanaye 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the second paragraph of the Tartan Army section needs sourcing and removal of 'point out'. A better source than one short sentence in a BBC article for 'were rewarded with a similar accolade at the 1998 World Cup in France' would be nice. It could tell us what the accolade was.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, I've described more clearly the awards received and added a more specific reference. The second paragraph has also been cited. Kanaye 13:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—Improved. 1a, 2 (MOS). Needs a good, thorough copy-edit throughout. Please don't just fix these examples.
  • "The team has played international football longer than any other nation in the world along with England,[8] who they played in the world's first international football match at Hamilton Crescent, Partick, in 1872." A comma or two would ease the reader's task in a longish sentence. "whoM" has mostly dropped out of the language, but not here. What do you mean by "along with England"? Are they vying with the Scottish team for the length of playing, or are they included in "the world" (hardly necessary to single them out, in that case).
  • "Although a part of the United Kingdom, Scotland maintains its own representative side that competes in all the major professional tournaments, though not at the Olympics as Scotland lacks membership of the International Olympic Committee." We have "Although" (preferred in formal language), and "though" (there are other examples, too). You could drop the first "a". Comma before "as". "Is not a member", not the ungainly "lacks membership".
  • Chaotic and clumsy: "Some of Scotland's most famous results include, in the 1978 World Cup, beating one of the favourites, the Netherlands, 3-2 with Archie Gemmill scoring a famous goal,[10] and in 1967, defeating the World Cup holders England 3-2 at Wembley Stadium." MOS insists on en dashes for sports scores.
  • The "lack" word intrudes into the final sentence in the lead, too. Better way of wording it. Tony 08:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes throughout the body of the article to reduce redundancy and informality. Still pondering how to rewrite some parts of the lead. Oldelpaso 10:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be better now, though I make no claim to it being brilliant prose. Oldelpaso 08:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Football may be one of the world's most exciting games to play or watch but it hard to translate that sense of passion into prose and I think you have done a decent job. I have several suggestions. I think Geograph has better images of Hampden than the squashed one on show here. If you want assistance in uploading one of them I'd be happy to help. Secondly, it pains me to say so, but I think the sentence 'Scotland have competed at eight World Cup Finals, but have never progressed beyond the first round of the finals competition.' should be in the lead para. 'Notable players' seems redundant as a section - would it not be better to have it as second main article under 'Records' where many of the more notable players are referred to? (There maybe some stylistic reason why it's there?). It's a pity there isn't a colour photo of a player in the modern strip (- this may have been mentioned above.) Finally, there is no mention of the changing nature of the clubs the players have come from, especially the role of the 'anglos'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I would love to change my oppose as is this is a great article, but there are a few issues:
  • "Scotland's qualifying campaign was unspectacular. They were far from impressive and lost 1–0 to Romania away from home but a 1–1 draw played out between Bulgaria and Romania in the final group match saw Scotland through." Using terms like "unspectacular" and "far from impressive" is a bit POV'ish. Could you rephrase those two sentences by explaining what the terms are supposed to express or just by removing them
  • "The tournament in Sweden approached but expectation within the Tartan Army was limited" Of course the tournmanet approached and it passed. "limited" is also very vague. How about: "As the tournament in Sweden approached, Scotland's fans were not very optimistic" or something similar?
  • "Scotland lost 2–0 with Paul Gascoigne scoring a spectacular goal and Alan Shearer also netting". Again "spectacular" isn't completely NPOV.
  • "Allegations have been made against the Tartan Army that they carry a strong anti-English sentiment,[70] being open and highly vociferous in their support of England's opponents.[71] Tartan Army members say that many England fans express the same sentiments about the Scottish team.[72] It has been suggested that there is nothing unusual in traditional rivals wishing to see one another defeated and that these matters should be seen in the context of good-natured sporting rivalry." That paragraph is really weasilish. Is it needed at all? Can't it be shrunk to two sentences and added to the previous paragraph?
  • The "notable players" section doesn't have any content. Why not move the link to the list of Scottish international footballers to the top of the "players" section and delete the "notable players" section? Obviously, the article will only mention notable players.
  • The "colours" section gives a nice historical perspective on this topic naming other colours worn by the squad. It would be nicer if the "stadium" and "supporters" sections would do the same. Has Hampden Park always been the stadium Scotland used. Have the Scotland supporters always had that nickname? Have they always had the reputation described in the section?
  • Having a section that just lists the current squad doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This information will inherently change and an encyclopedia should be to some extent timeless. Additionally, there is no reason why the squad as of July 3, 2007 should be more notable that the squad on say March 17, 1966 or January 21, 1989. I know such all articles have a section like that and that the wikiproject recomends it, so I probably won't be able to force a change in this policy. I wanted to remark that I don't like this nonetheless.--Carabinieri 19:45, 14 July 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.