The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of "Selection of hosts" section has no references.
Only 2 references in "World Cup summaries" section.
"Successful national teams" section has no references.
"Performances by host nations" section has no references.
Only 1 reference in "Best performances by continental zones" section.
"Awards" section has no references.
Only 2 references in "Overall top goalscorers" section.
"Fastest goals" section has no references.
"Most tournaments appeared (players)" section has no references.
"FIFA World Cup winning captains and managers" section has no references.
The article is poorly organised. It has too many lists. Info like how well host nations do, the best Asian and African teams, the players who score 5 goals in the World Cup, who can score goals in 11 seconds, who played in 5 tournaments, is trivia and FAs should not have trivia. Also, the "Media coverage" section needs more info.
The lead section is weak.
Maybe the lead section needs some information about the trophy and "selection of hosts".
"The most recent World Cup Finals were held between June 9 and July 9, 2006 in Germany, where Italy was crowned champion after beating France in the final, winning the penalty shootout 5-3 after the match finished 1-1 after extra time. Germany placed third after beating Portugal 3-1. The next World Cup Finals will be held in 2010 in South Africa, and the 2014 Finals will be held in Brazil." I think this is called recentism.
I disagree with this. The Olympic Games has a similar statement in its lead paragraph, as well as other international sporting event articles. It gives information to the reader about the timeframe of where the cycle of the World Cup is currently and also who was the most recent champion with some details added for some flavor. If pressed, we could reduce the details of the match, but I think that it is interesting to note in the lead section without having the reader trying to hunt for the answer in the article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I have since edited the lead section to address your concerns. How does it look now?
Yes, there is less recentism. That is OK. Now add some information about the trophy and selection of hosts. Also write a section about the Women's World Cup or remove that sentence from the lead. But the lead is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is not enough references. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will try to work on that. If you would not mind, I would appreciate it if you could strike that particular objection from your list, so that we can visually see how far the article has progressed. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I strike that. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section says "Since 1991, FIFA has also organized the FIFA Women's World Cup every four years" but there is no info about this in the rest of the article.
At one point or another, I believe there was a brief section discussing the Women's World Cup, with a link to the appropriate article. It appears that this section has been removed. This should be re-added into the article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has since been edited. If you feel our coverage of the Women's FIFA World Cup is acceptable, please strike your comment, or otherwise suggest ways we can improve it. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should expand the "Other FIFA tournaments" section, but that is not a problem with the lead. The lead no longer has a sentence about the Women's World Cup, so I strike that. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a copy-edit but I cannot help because my English is not very good.
--Kaypoh (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secret, I had encouraged Kaypoh not to add this nomination, because Kaypoh already has two noms running; are you willing to follow this one through and do the notifications, per the instructions at WP:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator brings up some good points. I will try to collect my thoughts on the subject and post a reply here soon. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am already in the middle of addressing the FAR for Premier League. Can this wait until that is dealt with? Oldelpaso 10:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the reasons I had asked that this FAR be held off; extra time should be granted if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article is that it's mostly written from a football statistician point of view. It's okay as a sports article, but not really as a featured article, which should be directed to a general audience of both football and non-football fans. We can easily remove most of the statistics and lists, but then there won't be a lot of material left. I have some ideas of what topics we need to add, but it's going to take time to make the new material well-written and well-referenced. I suggest as a starting point, we identify a few books and almanac written about the World Cup that we should cite, and by going through them we'll also know what we need to add. Chanheigeorge 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to think what statistics are important to keep in the article. Remove the other statistics. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and organization (4).Marskell (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Issues not addressed. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your premature removal opinion. As stated above, there was another Featured Article Removal nomination being addressed at the same time with similar topics and similar contributors, Premier League. The aforementioned FARC finished on December 19, a day and a half after your objection. Please allow a sufficient amount of time to pass (the Premier League nomination took nearly a month to complete) before deciding on your objections. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will strike my oppose if you improve the article so it is FA standard. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of references to various sections is well underway. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good, but you must also deal with the writing and statistics. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am doing. Can you be more specific with prose issues? It is difficult to fix without knowing what is wrong with it. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted information in tables to prose where possible, and have removed extraneous tables of statistics. The article now contains only three tables. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All major issues seems to have been adressed. --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems good. Any last comments? Marskell (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good. Woody (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a uniform state for citations, some use templates, some don't. Woody (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes needed, endash and citation formatting attention needed, missing dates and authors, endashes on scores, see my sample edits.[1]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, and a large percentage of the weblinks don't have a date or author. Fifa.com doesn't provide them, for instance. Marskell (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, still catching up. I'm busy this afternoon, but if you keep it open one more day, I'll run through it and do a final check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done an ndash sweep. It is the fact that the citations aren't uniform that is my issue. Is it ok to have citation templates for some but not for others, if the end result looks the same? Woody (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the end result is consistent formatting, I'm happy with some templates, others not (I'm not a fan of cite templates, so adding them unnecessarily isn't something I usually do). Woody, if you've checked through everything, and there's nothing left for me to check, that will save me some time tonight; I still have a lot to catch up on. I was worried about missing info (typically found on news sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do a cite sweep in a bit, I saw a few BBC ones without dates, they don't have authors. Other than that, it looks good I think. Woody (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.