I feel that this article satisfies all the featured list requirements. It is factually-accurate, well-referenced, includes appropriate pictures etc., relatively-stable (will only be updated once or twice every four years), and is interesting. It follows the same kind of design as Test cricket hat-tricks, One-day International cricket hat-tricks and List of Test cricket triple centuries (all three are FL). The naming is the only thing that could be considered "contraversial" - I chose Football (soccer) because that is the MOS-name for the main Wikipedia article. FIFA instead of football (soccer) per concensus. Otherwise, I think it is complete and compelling enough to satisfy all the FL criteria. Daniel.Bryant 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It should be called FIFA World Cup hat-tricks if you ask me. Punkmorten 05:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Generally, with titles, you put in what most people would say. I would call it either Football World Cup hat-tricks or Soccer World Cup hat-tricks, hence the current title. However, you make a valid point, and I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks. Daniel.Bryant 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should definitely be FIFA World Cup hat-tricks, so as to be consistent with FIFA World Cup. As it stands, object - not just for the name, but the article needs to be categorised and the references section ought to use ((cite web)). Also, it is not clear what the bar for inclusion is (presumably it is official recognition by FIFA). I would suggest having a separate section of disputed hat-tricks underneath the main list, where Patenaude's claim and mistakes in the record can be discussed, rather than relegating them to the References section, and I would suggest editing the 6th column in the table and removing the repetition of the words "FIFA World Cup", which clutter the layout. Qwghlm 07:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Name changed.
- Column 6 changed.
- Cite web has been used, however I have left some of the additional info for transparency. There is no need to outline that the sources had typos etc. in the main body of the article. However, it is now much more concise.
- Categories have been added. I personally think three is appropriate, but if you feel that it needs more (note that most FL have 2-3), I'll add them.
- Patenaude's claim is discussed in-depth in the "Notable World Cup hat-tricks" section, and as there is only the one real dispute, so no separate section is required for this.
- The "bar for inclusion" is defined in the first sentence - "the occasions when a footballer has scored three goals in a single football (soccer) World Cup Finals match (not including FIFA World Cup qualification matches)". By definition, as FIFA is the ultimate authority on any decision (who scored which goals etc.), therefore it is FIFA's recognised hat-tricks. I've added the specification of FIFA recognition anyways, just to clear it up. Daniel.Bryant 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Good stuff - all my objections have been resolved, changing vote to Support. Qwghlm 10:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support - per Qwghlm, the formatting and table are all very well done. (I like the flags as well — next to the country names :D) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support. Some suggestions: Consider left-justifying some/many of the columns rather than centred. That way, the flags, years, etc will line up vertically and may look neater. I wonder if the notable section might read better if you put move your bold "notable fact" text as the leading text of each bullet (slightly rephrased as necessary). Follow this with a dash and then the details. I'm not requesting this change – just try it and see if you like it. Finally, the text of the first paragraph in the notable section is uncomfortably similar to the reference. Re-check all your prose text for originality. Colin°Talk 12:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thanks for your input and suggestions. I fixed the first note, to redirect readers to the main body of text. With the left-align etc., I tried this, and it looked really weird, because of the centre-vertical align. I'd be interested to see what other users think of this, as I'd be more-than-happy to change it if everyone else wants it. With the bolding, I felt that the page is "listy" enough without introducing some more semi-headings etc., however again if other people think it should be as you detailed, I'd be happy to change it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support. Although I do not really care, I would prefer a version like this instead of the 100% wide, centered, and "airy" earlier version. Don't know about you other guys though. – Elisson • T • C • 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support, just please remove the bolding from "Notable World Cup hat-tricks" section. Renata 01:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support The neatness! Kingfisherswift 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Strong support. Great work with this list. CG 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support - Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]