Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Football (soccer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Football (soccer)

This article is well-written, comprehensive, and detailed. I think that this would make a fine FA. Raichu 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- very nice use of images and captions. Jkelly 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice article indeed (although I hate soccer) :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The lead section does not properly summarize the (rather long) article. Phils 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lead section:"maneuvering the spherical ball" feels a little too clinical. Shrinkness 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great article with appropriate usage of images and references. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- too many subsections resulting in a lopsided ToC. Needs to be reduced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Sub sub levels needs to be reduced. 2.1 is redundant. Article needs a copyedit, and history is incomplete. Mention the origins of the sport across the globe. (A ref is on the PRC page). =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got rid of the sub sub levels and moved the history from within Laws of the Game to its own section above. I've added something about pre-19th Century games but still need to tidy the section and copyedit it thoroughly. Oldelpaso 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support enjoyable to read and is a thorough breakdown of the subject. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, seems good to me. MaxSem 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Messy structure, too many lists. Also, references seem a bit scarce. Convert the lists to prose, please. — Wackymacs 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've converted two of the lists to prose, and I'm working on adding more references. Oldelpaso 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The other lists still need converting to prose, the article fails FA criteria 2a. — Wackymacs 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria 2a does not state that an article must contain no lists whatsoever! Sometimes lists are the best way of presenting information. The article only uses a few short lists, so I don't see what the problem is. — Dan1980 11:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct, it does not say that. But it does say the prose must be "... compelling, even brilliant" - this isn't what I call compelling or brilliant, sorry. The lists are not the only problem, the overall context needs copy-editing. — Wackymacs 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article Arnemann 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Support Good article, but pales compared to FIFA World Cup igordebraga ≠ 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article --Zoz (t) 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great Article, though a summary of the history of the game since 1904 might be useful. --Volcanopele 20:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very very good article, definately featured article quality in my opinion. -Benbread 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, article has improved an awful lot since the last time I read it. Fixed a few minor things and it might need a thorough copyedit by someone fluent in English (unlike me...), but as I am certain that it will be done, this FAC has my wholehearted support. – Elisson • Talk 21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a very good article, one deserving of FA status, and I can see no major (or minor) problems with it. The Halo (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very informative, explains the subject very well for people not familiar with the sport. Dan1980 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support It is, indeed, very informative and cleary describes the game, its intricacies and its development. This will make a most timely featured article with the World Cup beginning on 9 June running through 9 July. Alias Flood 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not a fan of soccer, but a great article none the less :) --Chris 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very nice article. Kjetil_r 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)