- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2016 [6].
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the prominent ballerina, Misty Copeland. She has risen to prominence from humble beginnings, despite great racial, social, family and financial stresses. Her story needs to be told and this article does that. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed a worthy subject, and I hope to read it soon and add further comments. In the meantime, please note that Ref. 48 is unformatted. I also question whether, in the lead paragraph summarising Copeland's achievements, it is appropriate to begin with a list of her commercial sponsors. That, surely, is not her greatest claim to fame. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two things. First, I kept wondering, when I read this, isn't Copeland the first black principal ballerina in the history of any of the big three US ballet companies (not just ABT)? If so, we should say so. Has any major European ballet company had a black principal ballerina? If not, that would seem relevant too. Second, does the article purport to describe all of Copeland's solo roles? If not, we should consider whether it names all of her most important roles. In any case, the article seems to peter out with respect to her roles after her recovery in mid-2013. It does not name any of her 2013 roles, and it names only one of her 2015 roles. It does not name any roles that she has danced since becoming principal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TTT here. Lauren Anderson was principal ballerina at Houston 25 years ago, and describing Copeland as "first at a major company" is an invitation to endless arguments about whether Houston Ballet (the fourth-largest in the US) is "major" enough. ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous sources like this one identify the big three US ballet companies as ABT, NYCB and San Francisco, and we already say so in Copeland's article. I wonder if Copeland says so in her memoir, or if a more general book about the history of ballet might make the point. I know there have been a couple of male principal dancers, but I don't think there has ever been a principal ballerina in either NYCB or San Francisco. The fact that Lauren Anderson (first black principal ballerina at Houston Ballet) is mentioned in articles about Copeland's promotion (and they do not mention any other previous black prima ballerinas) makes me think it is even more likely that neither of those two has ever has a black prima ballerina, and if that is the case, why not say so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I will look at this and add something over the next three days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What is encyclopedic? Should we enumerate her roles like a stage or theatre performer. I could start digging if this is desirable. Thanks for noticing this. I have become less active as an editor since becoming an Uber driver in 2014. I don't edit much between Friday and Monday, since that is when I drive the bulk of my hours. Hopefully, next week I will have time during the middle of the week to consider this type of detail if that is what you think is desirable. Since you have become active in this article, I would welcome any assistance you might lend in rounding out the article further.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article should mention all of her major solo roles. Here is a list of them. We already probably mention most of them, we just need to fill in some of the recent ones. Probably if you search her name and the name of the role, you'll find reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I will expand this over the next three days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest. When I read her career detail, it is not clear to me which roles are solo roles. Do any of you know, which of these roles are solo roles. I would gladly research any list of roles if you could itemize the missing ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell which roles were solos, but I am digging in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all solos, but the ones called "leading" roles should get the most attention. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not made it all the way through her bio yet. My Friday-Monday Uber work week begins in the morning. I'll have at it some more next week.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like you are making some good progress. Over the next few of days, I'll try to read through as much of the the article as I can and check the sources as I go. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Ssilvers and Iridescent can you let me know if I am adding the right amount of detail. It seems a bit much to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer to Ssilvers (and anyone from WikiProject Ballet who shows up) on the appropriate level of detail; I'm more used to painting & architecture articles, where the levels of what's considered appropriate detail are likely different since it's more important to illustrate changes in style over time. As an aside, I'd strongly suggest posting a request at WikiProject Ballet for people to take a look; I don't think it could reasonably be called inappropriate canvassing, given that those editors are the people least likely to support, as they're best placed to spot potential problems. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you're going too far overboard. I think it's better to write something and let others trim it than to miss something important. I agree with Iridescent that you need to get more editors to review this, and a notice at the Ballet project (and also at the Dance project?) might attract some good reviewers. And anywhere else you can think of. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers Why did "Stylistically, she is considered a classical ballet dancer." get removed from the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it doesn't add anything. She is a ballerina at a ballet company. Obviously, it's ballet, not modern dance, ballroom or any other style. It's like saying that "Stylistically, Placido Domingo was considered a classical opera singer." Note that the article classical ballet is a nearly unreferenced article that should be merged into Ballet. It just means older ballets in the standard rep. Even if one wants to break ballet down, Copeland and ABT perform contemporary ballet and neoclassical ballet as well as older ballets, so the statement is actually false, or a joke, like in Victor/Victoria when Julie Andrews pretentiously says: "Monsieur, I have a *lejitimate* voice!" In any case, the statement misinterpreted what the source meant. The NYT reviewer was basically admiring Copeland's "classical" approach, even though she is also good at modern ballet. But, again, that's sort of a pretentious and condescending thing to say, because you could basically say it about all good ballerinas. Like, even though she danced on Prince's piano, don't worry!, she's a real ballet dancer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers, Can you make sense of this article's commentary on her classical abilities?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, except that it shows that different reviewers can disagree. This reminds me that the article really needs a well-balanced "reputation section", where the really substantial discussions about Copeland's actual dancing (considering her body of work, as this article does) by legitimate ballet reviewers -- like Robert Gottlieb -- are consolidated. Copeland has implied in numerous interviews that what he (and others) has said is racist; he writes: "was race a determining factor in her ascension?" -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ballet expert needed I am trying to beef up her career history as requested above. It is not clear to me whether in 2013 she played both Queen of the Dryads and Mercedes or just the former. In 2014, it is clear that she performed both. Help would be great on clarifying this point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
(Moving comment from Talk:Misty Copeland)
In the lead section (although not necessarily the body), I'd suggest "Copeland became the first Black woman" rather than "Copeland became the first African American woman". Professional dancers tend to move between countries quite a lot, and in this context "first African American" could give the impression—partcularly to non-US readers to whom the term "African American" isn't as familiar—that there had been other black women to hold the position and she was just the first to be a US citizen. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked into this, and I conclude that readers in other countries would *not* be confused by her description as an African American woman. We even bluelink the term just in case there is any question at all. The term black people seems to be, if anything, more ambiguous. That article says: "the meaning of the expression varies widely both between and within societies". Similar Featured Articles?: Barack Obama's LEAD section calls him the first African American to hold the office of President, and Maya Angelou's article calls her the first African American woman to direct a film, but both also use the term "black". Most prestigious black-edited news and entertainment outlets seem to use both terms interchangeably. The Grio calls Copeland African-American here, but it calls her "black" here. Note the lower case "b". Black Enterprise magazine seems to use the terms interchangeably for Copeland. Ebony (magazine) does the same but uses an upper-case "B". My guess is that it does not matter, and that we, too, can use the term interchangeably in the article for variety's sake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I don't believe that this article is at GA level yet. It will be soon, once we create a well-structured "Reputation" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- GA or FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are "leading" roles, according to Copeland's ABT bio. "...and roles in Airs, Amazed in Burning Dreams, Baker’s Dozen, Ballo della Regina, Birthday Offering, Black Tuesday, The Brahms-Haydn Variations, Brief Fling, Company B, Désir, Gong, Hereafter, In the Upper Room, Overgrown Path, Pretty Good Year, Private Light, Raymonda Divertissements, Sechs Tänze, Sinatra Suite.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The were leading roles according to the source. Unless you have a contrary source, we should restore this description of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing the wrong source -- this page incorrectly summarizes Copeland's actual bio at ABT (which I mentioned and QUOTED for you above): http://www.abt.org/dancers/detail.asp?Dancer_ID=56 It clearly identifies and distinguishes the "roles", from the "leading roles". Please look more carefully at her actual ABT bio. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement was WP:OR; several facts within it are not adequately referenced. One might be able to prove that they were "in the same cast". Moreover, whether or not she had an "opportunity" to dance "alongside" one of her inspirations while still in the corps, is not of encyclopedic interest. It could hardly have been otherwise, since Herrera was a principal dancer with the company, so everyone in the corps had that "opportunity". Note that we previously state the encyclopedic information: that Herrera was one of her idols at an early age. If you could find a ref that says that she chose ABT over San Francisco because of her affection for Herrera, that might be of interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly was not WP:OR as it had two WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OR and RS are separate rules. If you read WP:OR carefully, you will see that the sources must actually support the facts relied on. As I stated above the sentence contains facts that are NOT supported by the sources. They only support the REDUNDANT idea that Copeland had idolized Herrera in 1999 (we already say that above in Copeland's article) and that she was on the same stage as Herrera while in the corps, which is totally unremarkable, since every corps dancer at ABT shared the stage with Herrera. It's an unhelpful sentence. As I said, if you want to write more about Herrera (but she is already mentioned enough in this article!), it might be of some interest to note (if it is true) that Copeland joined ABT instead of San Francisco (after dancing in both their summer programs) because Herrera was at ABT. But I have not seen anything that says so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Once you mention Anderson, the mention of additional non-bluelinked ballerinas from lesser companies is tangential information, and we didn't even assert that Jimenez is black. Jimenez is of no more significance than any number of dancers from Joffrey Ballet and other such companies. I think the paragraph is much clearer now, and I was able to fill in a major gap in the article with the addition of the AP article and the bold statement from the documentary. It would be nice to also show that there have been no black ballerinas at San Francisco Ballet, but I have not done the research for that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What source do you have that Boston Ballet is lesser than Houston Ballet? Both were sourced from the same article regarding other African American principals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Anderson, who is blue-linked, is mentioned in numerous news articles about Copeland's promotion. Jimenez, who is not blue-linked, is mentioned in only a few news articles. Even if Boston is comparable to Houston, it is neither helpful nor necessary to mention Jimenez or other examples of earlier black ballerinas like Virginia Johnson, Raven Wilkinson, Delores Brown, Carmen de Lavallade, Janet Collins, Debra Austin, Robyn Gardenhire, Andrea Long, Sandra Fortune-Green, Nora Kimball, Anne Benna Sims, Aesha Ash, Kayla Rowser, Céline Gittens or Michaela DePrince. Here is a good survey of black ballet pioneers. Currently, this article is not well-written, and adding redundant examples is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Copeland's memoir. TTT, do you have a copy of Copeland's memoir? I think that it is essential for anyone nominating this article for FA to have it and to read it carefully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a copy from the Chicago Public Library when I originally added the content. I don't have a copy now, but could probably get a hold of one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point, you will need to go through it again to check all the cites to the book in this article and to make sure, now that you have read more about her, that we note (1) if she says anything that casts doubt on other sources, or (2) if there is anything significant about her life that we are missing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a hidden comment in the article with the list of roles still to add. I'd have finished adding them by now, but you came to my talk page to yell at me about ref formatting, so I assume that you don't want me to work on it anymore. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, especially TTT. I read that you needed a ballet expert. Although my area of expertise is Canadian modern/contemporary dance, I think I can help with some of the ballet technical terms. This is my first FAC review, so I am sorry for not fixing things myself. Feel free to disagree with my comments and please PING me if you have any questions/need clarification.
- "When she was seven, Copeland saw the film Nadia on television, and suddenly Nadia Comăneci was her new role model." I would take out the word suddenly, or perhaps change it to "When she was seven, Copeland saw the biopic Nadia on television and its subject Nadia Comăneci became her new role model."
- Thanks for smoothing this out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "At age eleven, she found her first creative outlet at a Boys & Girls Club wood shop class." Delete as it sounds like random trivia.
- I agree and have deleted the sentence, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "After three months of study, Copeland was en pointe" I'm confused by the timeline. Did Copeland's mother divorce Robert, live with various boyfriends, and move to Gardena in three months? If not, I think this sentence should go at the end of the previous paragraph.
- I also find the chronology of this paragraph *and* the ones preceding and following it confusing. Can you clarify the timeline in this whole section, TTT? When did Misty begin Drill Team? How long afterwards did she take her first dance lesson; then, what is the chronology up through the Spotlight Award? As I mentioned before, I think that you will need to revisit Copeland's memoir to clarify all this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted below, I have her biography on order from the Chicago Public Library...A copy is "in transit" to my local branch in the interlibrary loan system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I think that we have clarified it a little in the meantime. I think the whole confusion starts with when, exactly, did she meet and start working with Bradley. I bet she was really 12, not 13, when she had her first ballet lesson. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers, I don't think it was until the 1995-96 school year and more likely than not that she was 13. She possibly started a few days before she was 13, but I doubt it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, The chronology is a bit muddled by the book. The book seems to state that she made the drill team and became its captain as a 6th grader. Sometime after Christmas of that year seems to be when she took her first ballet class according to the book. However, some sources affirm that her first ballet class was in 1995. However, in the Spring of 1995 she was only 12 and many sources affirm that she was 13 when she began taking ballet. Maybe what is meant is that she attended ballet at the Boys and Girls club in the Spring of 1995 and began attending a formal ballet school at age 13.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess one possibility is that she took her first class after the 1995-96 winter break. It is possible that Copeland may have been a year behind in school and the September that she turned 13 was the beginning of her 6th grade year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it only makes sense if you were right the first time -- it must have been early 1995; then, all the timing falls into place sensibly (in fact, she graduated on schedule in 2000, so she must have finished 6th grade in June 1994). I removed the (I think) erroneous mention of 1995-1996 winter break and made some minor changes concerning the timing surrounding the first lessons. Please check the changes in the article and see if you agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By all accounts she was 13 when she started ballet and by the book she started after winter break of a school year. It had to have been 1996. Also the Dance Magazine source says she started nearly 3 years ago in a December 1998 article. However, I believe she was in 8th grade. The book glosses over this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only way it makes sense is if she met Bradley in early 1995 and began formal lessons around her 13th birthday in September 1995. Less than 3 years later was the August 1998 custody battle. If she didn't meet Bradley at the Club until 1996, and didn't start lessons with her at the ballet school until some months later, then she only studied with Bradley for less than 2 years, and the chronology doesn't make any sense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers, you asked me to pick up the book. The book says she started classes after winter break. Thus, I am guessing January 1996. Within a few months sh was probably going to the San Pedro Dance Center. Also, as I stated we have the Dance Magazine source saying she started less than 3 years before December 1998. You also point out that she started less than three years before August 1998. This means it had to be about January 1996. Early 1995 does not work with the 13 years old accounts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Guessing is not good enough for an FA, and I am not persuaded at all by what you have said. I've removed the date for now, as it is clearly OR. This article does not give a clear enough chronology of these years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the next paragraph, we say "first year of middle school". Do we mean 6th grade or 7th grade? In different places middle school starts in either grade 6 or 7. I think she means 7th grade, but can you tell from the book? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)0[reply]
- The book is clear that it is 6th grade.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "a featured role in The Chocolate Nutcracker, an African American version of the tale, narrated by Debbie Allen, soon followed" Delete "narrated by Debbie Allen" as it's unnecessary detail.
- I don't agree with z1720 on this one: Debbie Allen is a famous choreographer and performer, and also a woman of color, and she was, no doubt, the big attraction of this production. But we should say where these early performances were. TTT, would you identify the theatre or ballet company that produced these early performances, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The current source is silent on those issues. I have her biography on order from the Chicago Public Library to see if that detail is available. My local branch does not have an available copy. A copy is "in transit" to my local branch in the interlibrary loan system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if my comments are confusing. I suggested deleting things if they didn't speak directly to her life/career, keeping in mind WP:FA? criteria #4 (that an article should not go into unnecessary detail.) I can understand if those facts should be kept in the article.Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the end of the workshop, she received one of the few offers to continue as a full-time student at the school, but with encouragement from her mother to return home and from Bradley to return to the personal attention the Bradley family offered, she declined with dreams of a subsequent summer with ABT." Feels like a run-on sentence. Split into two sentences. Suggestion: "At the end of the workshop, she received one of the few offers to continue as a full-time student at the school. She declined because of the encouragement from her mother to return home, the personal attention the Bradley family offered for her ballet training and dreams of a subsequent summer with ABT."
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is still a little confusing re: the Bradleys -- What exactly does the book say? This might help smoothe out the chronology. We already use this ref. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers, what is the confusion now that we have moved the en pointe date?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this one is OK now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "but they stated that they would not seek to enforce their rights to twenty percent of Copeland's earnings until she became eighteen." A reader might think you are saying that the Bradleys won't collect their 20% until Copeland turns 18. I would take out "until she became eighteen" for clarification.
- I have rephrased to eliminate the ambiguity regarding the "until she became eighteen" phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the 2000 Summer Intensive Program, she danced the role of Kitri in Don Quixote." I looked at the refs and her profile on ABT says she was a lead gypsy and flower girl. Kitri is not usually portrayed as a gypsy. Also, neither source says she played Kitri. I think you need to change this.
- z1720 is right. Copeland's ABT profile does not identify when she danced which role, so it is a useless ref here, and I removed it. The NYTimes article says that she danced the "Dream Sequence" in Don Quixote. What character dances the Dream Sequence? Maybe Copeland identifies the role in her memoir? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, I have her biography on order from the Chicago Public Library...A copy is "in transit" to my local branch in the interlibrary loan system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers, I have reread her memoir pages 148-151 and it is silent on Don Quixote focussing its attention on her role in Tharp's Push Comes To Shove.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I added a bit about her work on Push Comes To Shove.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not asking about the production of Don Quixote at ABT in 2000, I was asking about the one in California in 1996, while she was studying with Cindy Bradley. If she discusses that in the book, it must be around pp. 80-87 somewhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "At age 19, her puberty had been delayed, a situation common in ballet dancers." Wikify "had been delayed" with delayed puberty?
- I don't think we should do it, but only because the delayed puberty article is so horribly bad that it would only confuse readers who clicked on it. I think the text in Copeland's article makes the meaning pretty clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We should always link to a dedicated link. The quality of the article should not be a determining factor. Articles improve over time and we should be linked to the proper subject as long as the topic should be well-explained if this article reaches a good quality level.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "and William Forsythe's workwithinwork" Workwithinwork shouldn't be wikified as it leads to the William Forsythe page, and doesn't provide any info on this piece
- Agreed. I de-wikified it. Shold Workwithinwork begin with an uppercase W or not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At the beginning, you say, "Copeland did not see her father between the ages of two and twenty-two" but later you say, "Also in 2004, she met her biological father for the first time" If she saw her father before she was 2, she can't meet him for the first time in 2004.
- Good point. I added "in 20 years" to the end of the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have for now. I'll take another look tomorrow. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I will respond to these over the next 72 hours, starting today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- z1720, How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Sorry, Tony, I know this nom is still active but with no clear support for promotion after five weeks or so it's feeling more like a PR than a FAC (even though it's had a recent PR). I'd like to archive now and ask you to work on further improvements away from FAC, and then renominate. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 [8].
- Nominator(s): Numerounovedant (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki Koechlin is an Indian actress of French descent, working in Bollywood films. She is a theatre actress as well and has written, directed and acted in numerous plays. She although has been involved in commercially successful Bollywood films, is better known for her unconventional roles in films like Margarita with a Straw and That Girl in Yellow Boots, among others.
I nominated this article for GA status after having done extensive work on it and now am looking to further improve it and bring it to FA status. Numerounovedant (Talk) 8:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Suggest withdrawal – Not meaning to discourage you, but the article has hardly had any major improvement since its GA promotion. The GA-FA transition needs a fair amount of work. WP:FAC isn't a substitute for WP:PR. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think that every good article needs a fair amount of work before it is brought to FAC. Sometimes a GA-nominated article is ready for FAC. I reviewed it for GA and I can say that it covers important aspects of her life and career, comprehensive enough to be nominated for FAC. I can't comment on its prose or references though. -- Frankie talk 12:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have I implied that? I based my opinion solely based on this article. IMO, it isn't close to the FA criteria. YMMV —Vensatry (Talk) 12:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not jumping to any conclusion whether or not it satisfies the FAC criteria but if you think it doesn't, I think you should elaborate. -- Frankie talk 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose promotion, suggest a peer review. I've only reviewed two sections and already there are plenty of problems. Here's an example of what I've found:
- "Koechlin took the project and to pursue it further she shifted to Mumbai" -- is not the kind of prose I'd be expecting to see on a featured article.
- "Koechlin, after moving to Mumbai, auditioned for Anurag Kashyap's Dev.D (2009)..." -- The commas here don't help with the flow: "After moving to Mumbai, Koechlin auditioned for Anurag Kashyap's Dev.D (2009)..." would be more like it.
- "Koechlin had four releases in 2011, the first one was Bejoy Nambiar's crime-thriller Shaitan..." -- "was" does not work halfway through a sentence as a past tense.
- "It was a modern take on Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's novel Devdas, and Koechlin played..." --pronoun needed.
- "..Kalki who is an intriguing actor but perhaps not experienced enough to pull off the complexity of her character" -- check ellipsis.
- "Koechlin shared screen with..." Badly written, not to motion missing a word.
- " was nominated for the Best Actress Award at the Star Screen Awards" -- watch for repetitive words.
- "It was followed by Zoya Akhtar's ensemble..." New para, new introducer
- "Koechlin received a Filmfare nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her role" -- "for her role" is redundant here.
- "In 2012, she reunited with Abhay Deol..." -- new para, new noun.
- "Koechlin portrayed a political activist student in it" -- "in it" is not FA quality and is redundant anyway.
I concur with Vensatry here that FAC was perhaps a little premature. CassiantoTalk 17:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after a quick scan
- The infobox says she was born in Ooty, while the lead says Pondicherry.
- Done Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 'Her most recent play Colour Blind (2014), a take on the life of Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore which she co-wrote, screened at the Sir Mutha Venkata Subba Rao Hall in August 2014.' - Don't you think this is too much for the lead?
- DoneNumerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- What is 'play and screenwriter'? You mean Playwright and screenwriter (films)?
- DoneNumerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 'Koechlin won the Best Actress at Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival' - A crucial word is missing here.
- Done Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Parts of the second para of 'Early life' section are not covered in the source - the bit about the Mysore-based school for instance.
- Added References Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Precision is needed for most of the facts in the section. Except for her date of birth, this isn't there for any claim.
- Added References Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 'She performed in various plays like David Hare's The Blue Room, Marivaux's The Dispute and a devised play The Rise of the Wild Hunt in her two-year stint with the theatre group' - I'm not sure if she was a part of these plays - one dates back to 1998, while the other goes back to the 18th century. More importantly, none of these are covered in the source material.
- Added source and More importantly either you didn't read the whole thing or just missed the "two-year stint" part and the fact that the only original play was refereed to as "devised" implying that the other two were not conceived at the time. Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 'Apart from her acting career Koechlin has written, produced and acted in many stage plays in India' - So the plays are not a part of her acting career?
- Fixed But in fairness to mention the production and the writing part, it does make sense. Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Her nationality is unsourced.
- This one is kind of silly and ridiculous because the whole article and references in it talk about her being born, being raised, have lived, worked in India and you still need a reference for it? If you still think its important, have a look at GA/FA articles Kajol, Priyanka Chopra,
Madhuri Dixit, Kareena Kapoor, Deepika Padukone (who wasn't even born in India), none of them cite the nationality. Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you're too smart why mention it in the infobox? —Vensatry (Talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I mentioned it because all the other articles I referred to also did! Numerounovedant (Talk) 7:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why the list of plays are not mentioned in the table? Ditto with awards.
- Correct me if I am wrong, the awards are in table in the Awards section.
- The creation of a separate table would just be repetition of information and is totally unnecessary, See : WP:MoS/Tables (It is clear from the Lead itself Para 2-Line 1) Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the reliability of these sources: Mail Today, Scroll.in, ScoopWhoop, India TV.
- I think they are pretty much decent sources for a GA. But I cannot comment on if they are okay for a FA-level article.
- The reference from Mail Today has a substitute, Scrool.in qualifies as WP:IS and if it does not satisfies the criteria it too has substitues, India TV is a leading Hindi News Channel, Scoopwhopp has been an active News Portal as well and meets the WP:IRS criteria. Numerounovedant (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- All these are just from the lead and 'Early life' section. These issues were overlooked by the GA reviewer. I'm not a native speaker, and I'm not going to comment on the prose aspect. But there are so many issues with it - I leave it to others. —Vensatry (Talk) 5:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have replied to some of the comments by Vensatry. I am not a major contributor or the nominator of the article. From what I see from this message, I think the nominator mistook FAC as peer review? -- Frankie talk 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @FrB.TG: No, I just stated the possibility of what Vensatry stated being true because there was no explanation! Numerounovedant (Talk) 6:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alright! Good luck and I wish to see an FA in form of Ms. Koechlin, who I think is truly a rare and underrated actress in Bollywood. -- Frankie talk 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GA is a notoriously unreliable indicator of sn article's quality, depending as it does on one editor's judgement. I have seen some pretty substandard stuff awarded the GA mark. I'm not saying that happened here, and the article has undergone a recent peer review, so I think the nominator has tried to prepare the article for this stage. But it doesn't seem as though the prose has ever been checked thoroughly by an experienced English prose writer. That needs to happen; at the moment the article is well short of the required FA prose standard, whatever its other qualitiies. If this can be done within the normal FAC timescale I see no need for withdrawal. The issue of source reliability should perhaps await a specfic sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Numerounovedant (Talk) 6:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Closing comment -- Based on the above I'm going to archive the nom so improvements can be made away from the pressure of FAC. Please don't be discouraged but take the comments on board -- you can re-nominate once a minimum of two weeks has passed, per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2016 [12].
- Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my fourth FAC nomination. The article is about the bicycle kick, which is one of association football's most celebrated skills. It has gone through numerous reviews, including the Guild of Copy Editors (twice) and a couple of GA reviews. I consider that the article covers all major areas of the subject, provides an exceptional narrative about the maneuver and its relevance to association football culture, tactics, and history. A comment in the talk page also pointed out that the article was great at providing the names of various notable figures in the sport's history. The sources are mostly sports books (as this is a sports article). A request has been recently made for a video to be included into the article, but I don't consider that to be a problem for the FAC nomination. In fact, I think this request highlights the high quality of the article (see the version prior to my major work: [13]). I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. I thank in advance all support votes, and kindly request oppose/neutral votes to please provide an opportunity to correct any problems.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a difficult topic to describe, so you deserve some credit for the attempt and for the clarity of some of the article. I can't support, however, first because the definitions of and delineation of what qualifies as a bicycle kick are not clear. The lead defines it as "a physical move in association football achieved by throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." Surely the ball needs to be mentioned! No-one reading that definition would have much chance of copying the action accurately. This needs a rethink. It continues with "the manoeuvre is named after either the cycling motion or the scissor motion that it resembles". Try cycling with the same movement: the legs go in the wrong direction. The Name section is very international, but I'm not convinced that bicycle=overhead=scissors. The Mark Hughes goal against Spain is mentioned later. Watch it on youtube (or elsewhere) – it doesn't resemble the description in Execution or most of the images on the page. At the very least, the article needs more detail on the differences among these three. On a separate point, what happened with the GA reviews? There appeared to be two happening at the same time, one of which was completed successfully. Did you address Alpinu's points from the first review? EddieHugh (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
- What an interesting comment! Let me respond to what I find to be the major points in your comment:
- Mentioning the ball is an improvement. I added a mention of it here: [14]. Most of the literature on the topic emphasizes the motion, rather than the ball. Players can perform bicycle kicks without striking the ball, generally to much ridicule (and usually to some minor injury).
- The second sentence refers to the name, which the body of the article proceeds to explain. Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a manual; if the reader wants to become a master of the bicycle kick, the article provides enough sources and external links to help an aspiring Pele reach his or her dreams. The article's lead section is also a summary of the information in the body of the text, so it is unreasonable for a reader to expect being fully capable of executing a bicycle kick (one of association football's most difficult and dangerous moves) from just reading the introduction.
- About the bicycle kick=overhead=scissors, I added a sentence to further explain what is found in the literature: [15]. The literature on the topic predominantly places all of them as the same, and even those sources that distinguish them (such as Witzig) indicate the only difference is in the angle of the maneuver.
- Alpinu's GA review was done in bad faith and without following the GA criteria. The user was given over a week to improve their review according to the GA guidelines, but Alpinu refused to do so. You can read more about the problem at the GA archives (see [16]), or you can also ask senior GA participants Cordless Larry and Wugapodes. Moreover, I consider to have addressed all of the points raised by Alpinu, even the one about flipping the alphabetical order of a sentence because he wanted the term chilena to be presented before the term chalaca.
- Thanks for the comment, Eddie! Please let me know if you have any further thoughts.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to give a brief overview of the GA reviews for those wondering. It's uncommon but not unheard of for a reviewer to do a review out of line with the GA criteria (that's why WP:What the Good article criteria are not exists). Marshal raised their concerns on the GA talk page and they were discussed. The general feeling of participants was that the review was unfair, so Marshal would be best off closing and resubmitting. Not wanting it to languish longer because of a bad review (it can take well over a month for a GA review to start), I offered to do a new one immediately. This isn't uncommon, as there's no minimum wait period to resubmit, and a new review is generally faster than reviewing an unfair decision. I hope that answers some questions, and best of luck to you Marshal! Wugapodes (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Wugapodes. Thank you for taking the time to write this explanation. I appreciate it a ton! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 Talk 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to see an article about this iconic move here at FAC. I had the football bible The ball is round within arm's length when I saw your nomination. Thank you for bringing it here, as a result I've spent a good ole time on youtube watching the greatest overhead kicks. As for my comments, my main concerns are twofold:
1: I like the content but not the organisation of it. I found it puzzling and think it makes the whole article come across as rambling on. For example, the whole article is basically about multiple claims to invention, so why end with a subsection called Controversy? Another example, .. is in Invention but the similar sentence is in the Diffusion section, and another similar sentence is in Acclaim. I am not 100% sure how to fix it, but something needs to be done. Maybe list all claims, ordering them by time/country. And then round it off with various conclusions from sport historians who investigated the matter.
2: The actual move needs a better description. In the lead it says "throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." This doesn't capture the essence for me. It misses out that the foot is higher than the head when it hits the ball, and misses out the ball goes over the head, kicking it behind the player. See for instance Gardner book p. 144. In the Execution section, it doesn't even mention what is in the lead. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that go through the move step by step.
Detailed comments:
- I am fairly new here at FAC, so more experienced reviewers are better judges, but in my interpretation of the style rules it is only needed to add references in the lead if the content is controversial. I admit there are a few statements that are somewhat controversial, but not to the extent that lawsuits are imminent, and even so, why so many citations in the lead, even for the uncontroversial statement about successful performance [5]? And surely the footnotes can wait till the body of the text? I would not use any citations in the lead.
- "Bicycle kicks are used when players find the acrobatic manoeuvre their best resource." Not sure where in the text this is backed up. I don't agree with it as a statement either, as I have seen the odd case of showboating.
- Why describe defensive before offensive? I would think that they occur more often in attack, although I have no evidence for this. (Actually, with all the stats collected these days, is there nothing published on frequency? I checked The Numbers Game by Anderson & Sally, but nothing sadly.)
- The turn of the 20th century is too ambiguous, see turn of the century. Maybe say "beginning of"
- I think the Diego Costa image is not as good as lead image as the Ruben Mendoza one. Costa's move is partly obscured. Mendoza's move is clear. Plus it being in black and white signals instantly that this is not a modern invention.
- "sculptures, films, and literature" It features in commercials as well, which I think should be mentioned. I'm sure you can find sources. There are many, but Rooney's ad is described [[17]] for instance.
- "through a cross" I would say 'from a cross'
- "enough space to perform it—Peruvian defender César González would allow the ball to pass him" I am not sure I get the connection: how does letting it pass make enough space?
- The caption "British football was the foundation for a uniquely South American style of football, especially in the Río de la Plata region.[24]" this text should be in the body. As a caption it is misleading, because it seems this is a 1895 painting between 2 English clubs. I like the image, but I'm not convinced it is appropriate in this article.
- Perhaps it is possible to reduce the number of parentheses, especially in the Invention section, some don't seem necessary.
- "stevedores" probably deserves to be linked
- "Peruvians and Chileans during these years" It's not clear to me which years these are, better to spell it out
- "first performed the bicycle kick outside Western South America in matches in Argentina and Spain" Again, when was this?
- "During the first editions of the South American Championship" Again, which year?
- "It was also around this time that, in Brazil, .. " This whole paragraph here puzzles me. It's not clear why this is in the Diffusion section, as it starts with a Brazilian with local fame and ends with yet another claimed inventor.
- "received numerous Argentine, Uruguayan, and Brazilian footballers" Is received the right word?
- "During this time, one of the first notable" Again, which years?
- "despite his appearance" is unnecessarily mysterious if you don't elaborate in what way his appearance was at odds with being fine instinctive. It may be better not to mention this at all
- any reason why tiro de chalaca is in italics but "a la Piora" in quotes?
- I would make all of Leônidas da Silva a link
- The source [18] says that Leonidas said himself at the end of his life he was not the inventor. That is significant info I think.
- "The majority of the goals" is at odds with the earlier statement that he only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick
- "Italy won the 1938 World Cup, according to sports historian David Goldblatt's, with a nucleus of Argentine-born players.[56] The influx of South American footballers ended before the Second World War" This seems out of place, should be with the previous paragraph about Italy. Although one could argue it is not needed at all in an article about the bicycle kick.
- "Doug Ellis, President Emeritus of English club Aston Villa, claims" should be claimed
- "Due to the lack of new developments in British football at the time, this last claim is unlikely to be true" First of all, by saying this one is not true, you are inferring all the others are true. Secondly, the logic seems a bit odd to me, somehow it is a fact that there are no new developments and thus the bicycle kick could not have been invented?
- I am not sure why the 1st paragraph of Acclaim is in the Acclaim section and not in one of the earlier sections
- Goal of the Century: maybe add that that goal was a long solo, to ensure it isn't thought to be a bicycle kick
- "match between Argentina and England" Argentina should be a wikilink the first time mentioned, not here
- "Sweden and England" England should have been linked earlier. Check other links as well: Only first occurrence should be a link.
- Rooney: it was significant that the goal was in the Manchester derby
- "injuries": it should say whose kick it was, Tueart's, it's too generic now, and reader is likely to think it is Lake's
- Why is Balotelli in the culture section?
- "best overhead and scissors kicks" why not use bicycle kick?
- Why are the Huhes and Oblitas kicks in culture section and not with the Sanches, Rooney, etc kicks?
- "The Uruguayan novelist " I'm not sure why this is part of the same paragraph as the sculptures
- "Spanish edition " This makes it look as if in the English translation it is different. Is it? Simpson & Hesse don't say so.
- "According to a FIFA report, bicycle kicks are common in beach soccer" I don't think this sentence adds anything. Just add the source to previous sentence.
- The "See also" links seem, apart from the history one, rather random. I think the article can easily do without this section. At the very bottom are category links to related articles, those suffice.
- Footnote A: Gardner also distinguishes between the two, see page 148. I'm not sure the footnote is the right place, I think a case could be made to mention it in the body of the article
- "HMS Amphion arrived to Callao" maybe at Callao?
- Footnote F. I think this should be in the maiin text, not footnotes. Especially since these are reports from people not from Peru or Chile.
- Footnote G. Again, consider lifting it out of the footnotes, as it is quite important info.
- Bibliography: Freire & Ribeiro 2006 is missing
- Bibliography : Pele and Fish is 2007 I believe, not 2013
- Glanville, Brian (2010). No reference pointing to this book
- reference 62: Pelé 2006, The Beautiful Game. page numbers missing
- Cunha, Loris Baena (1994 and Rull, Nomdedeu (2004) and a few others could use a translated title
- Inconsistent ISBN format. Most are ISBN 13 but a few are ISBN 10. Easy to convert them here: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter
I hope this is not too daunting to fix. I'd love to see it featured on the home page one day. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
- Hi Edwin! Thank you for the thorough review of the article. One of the reasons I love the FAC process is reading input from other researchers/writers/editors. I am genuinely grateful for all of the time you put into helping improve the article!
- I'll respond to the major comments first and then to the specific ones:
- 1. The subsection on controversy highlights the popular culture aspect of it in South America. The perspectives provided there include that of aficionados, researchers, football administrators, and even football players. The current organization of the article follows a narrative structure that is better than a list. The article itself isn't about claims to invention, rather it is about the spread of the bicycle kick, the public's fascination with it, and the relative obscurity of the move that (even in the second half of the twentieth century) led to people claiming certain players as "inventors" (which is more of an honorific title than a reality); I purposely mentioned those in the article to show how the public reacted to the display of the maneuver.
- I think mass media has helped make the move more visible. When writing the article, I placed myself in the eyes of these viewers seeing the bicycle kick for the first time. I think it is the same experience moviegoers had when they saw Pele do it in Escape to Victory.
- 2. Here is another improvement to the lead sentence based on the suggestions ([19]). Here is another one with the "above head level" suggestion ([20]).
- I'll comment on the rest later on.
- Thanks again for the suggestions! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further response
- Execution description: Improved. [21]
- Best resource: Removed. [22]
- Defensive/Offensive: Does it really matter which one goes first? I also can't find stats on it; I've seen it used a lot in South American football as a defensive move (mainly for showboating, but still a defensive move).
- Turn of the century. Changed. [23]
- Title image switch: Done. [24]
- Commercial ads: Done. [25]
- Enough space. The Gonzales example was not translating correctly, so I just made it more straightforward. [26]
- British football image. Image improved (more relevant to the text) [27]
- Reducing parentheses. Done. [28]
- Wikilinking stevedores. Done. [29]
- Clarification on dates. Done. [30]
- Is received the right word? I don't know. If you have a better alternative, please let me know.
- Piola's apperance. Fixed. [31]
- A la piola quote consistency Done. [32]
- Leonidas not inventor. That's not the point. Leonidas, Piola, Parola, Pele, etc. are not the inventors of the bicycle kick. That's why the invention section is separated from the rest of the narrative. The attribution of invention is more of an honor than a reality in these other cases.
- Pele goals. It's not that he actually only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick. He's just trying to say that the amount of times were few compared to the other goals he scored. Fixed. [33]
- Italy 1938. Fixed. [34]
- Doug Ellis. I blame the confusion and odd logic on Wilson. It should be fixed now. I think his point is that British football had yet to adapt many of the developments made in other parts of the football world. [35]
- Acclaim first paragraph. The prior section ends with the South American players ending their migration. The acclaim section focuses on the story since then.
- Argentina and England. Argentina's national football team is first mentioned here.
- Sweden and England. Fixed. [36]
- Manchester derby. Mentioned. [37]
- Best bicycle kicks: Moved and fixed. [38]
- Tueart: Added. [39]
- Balotelli: Clarified that this was during his youth years. [40]
- Beach soccer: Improved. [41]
- Sculpture and writings: I associate the two as works of art, so I placed them in the same paragraph. Yes, it seems that Vargas Llosa only mentions this in the Spanish edition (unless I missed it when reading the English version, which is unlikely).
- Footnote A: Done. [42]
- Footnote F & G: These work best as footnotes. There's no reason to overwhelm the readers with these details in the main text. They also would detract from the narrative flow.
- At Callao: Done. [43]
- Freire & Ribeiro: Fixed. [44]
- Pele Fish 2007: Fixed. [45]
- Pele 2006: Page numbers not included, so next-best alternative is the chapter title.
- Glanville 2010: Fixed. [46]
- Translating titles: Done. [47]
- ISBN 13 standardizing: Done. [48]
@Edwininlondon: I've fixed nearly everything that you pointed out, but did disagree with a few suggestions. I hope the minor disagreements are not considered a challenge or a cause for dispute, because I do wholeheartedly consider the article now looks and reads much, much better thanks to your suggestions. Please let me know your thoughts. Again, thanks for the improvements; you're the best!--MarshalN20 Talk 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will go over the entire text, sentence by sentence, and at the end I will try to give feedback about the article as a whole.
Intro:
- I would split the first sentence in two: "... physical move in association football achieved by throwing ... " -> "... physical move in association football. It is achieved by throwing ..."
Section Name:
- Instead of "three names: the bicycle kick, the overhead kick, and the scissors kick" rather "three names: bicycle kick, overhead kick, and scissors kick"
- At the sentence "The manoeuvre is also called an "overhead kick", which (according to football instructors Klaus Bischops and Heinz-Willi Gerards) refers to.. " I would either drop the ( ) symbols, either everything within the ( ).
Section Execution:
- Instead of "Not only does the performer need to maintain good form when executing the move, but must simultaneously exhibit exceptional accuracy and precision when striking the ball." I would suggest "... when executing the move; he must simultaneously ..."
- At "... when a player facing his side's goal uses the action to clear the ball in the direction opposite his side's goalmouth ...", I think it is clear enough when you say "opposite direction" instead of "direction opposite his side's goalmouth"
History, subsect Invention:
- For more concise writing in " ...they find that separating fact from fiction is possible when searching available records and that truth is more satisfying than legend." I would suggest "they think reconstructing the true history is possible, and that it is to be preferred over the legend."
- Perhaps "." instead of ";" to split this long sentence: "According to Chilean journalist Luis Osses Guíñez (author of Talcahuano's football history), Unzaga's first recorded bicycle kick occurred in 1918, as documented by a civil law notary report filed after a heated match between Talcahuano and neighbouring Concepción turned violent; Unzaga, described by Osses Guíñez as a hot-tempered Basque, got into a fistfight with a referee who called a foul on the player's bicycle kick."
... to be continued ...
Kareldorado (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Karel! Thank you for the improvement suggestions. I applied most of them (see [49]). The sentences in the execution section were heavily worked on by copy-editors, and I would prefer to leave them as they are at the moment.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- sorry but this review has been open around six weeks without attracting support for promotion, or indeed any comments at all for the past month, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2016 [51].
- Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a film showcasing the superstar Rajinikanth as a character actor, widely considered his best performance. I have worked on this article for over two years and I feel it is very FAC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name" - what year did the novel come out, and does it have an article?
- "Although Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali, his affection for his sister and the tragic loss of his arm" - could read as Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the tragic loss of his arm
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 2009 Balu Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", which was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions"" - I don't understand how a statement made in 2009 affected his decisions in the film?
- I've now written, "In 2009 Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", stating that this was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because Mahendran had no previous directing experience, Balu Mahendra" - no need to repeat his first name here
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mahendran agreed on a montage after Babu sang a line or two (much to the actor's disappointment)" - this could work fine without the brackets
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chettiar was perplexed by the finished film's lack of dialogue (since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer), and did not expect such a visually-rich film" - again, I think this sentence would read smoothly without the brackets. I'm not sure what to recommend, but I feel that this sentence could be rephrased slightly
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rare for Tamil cinema, Mullum Malarum has no duets" - could read as Mullum Malarum features no duets, which is considered rare in Tamil cinema
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- " Chettiar apologised to Mahendran, offering him a (politely refused) blank cheque, and the director thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"" - a bit choppy. Could read as Upon the film's release, Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, to which he politely refused. The director also thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander" - missing comma; After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu said that the film" - stated
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil and two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film" - syntax error, should read as Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil, two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film awards
Those were the minor prose issues I came across during my initial read-through of the article. All in all, I think the article is solid and very comprehensive - good factors for a FA. JAGUAR 10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for addressing them Kailash! With all of that out of the way, I'll support this transition from GA to FA. The article is broad, comprehensive and well written. JAGUAR 13:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilink "winch" for those who might not be familiar with the term.
- I have linked it in the lead and plot sections. Anywhere else I should link it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a simpler word for "Itinerant"?
- I found no synonyms on Wiktionary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "won first prize" — "won the first prize".
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan intervened and Balu Mahendra made his debut in Tamil cinema." — Sounds vague. Why did Haasan intervene and what for? For requesting Mahendra to be the cinematographer? If so, then did he make the request to Chettiar or Mahendran?
- The source reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kailash29792: I've rephrased it myself for you. Do resolve the other comments and let me know by pinging me.
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it this way. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film" — "as he hired Mahendran as director due to successful stint as a screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film."
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it from me. The article looks good. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kailash29792: Thanks for resolving my comments. This article has my support for its transition from GA to FA. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will look at it tomorrow if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were the initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan recommended Balu Mahendra for the job, which Mahendran accepted, leading to Mahendra making his debut in Tamil cinema.[8][9][10]
Although "
-rep of "although"
- Reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mahendran refused to direct the film if Rajinikanth was not cast,[11] and Chettiar capitulated;[6][5] however, he was still unhappy with the director's decision and called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" every time he visited the set.[15] Ra" -As my good friend Tim riley always says, "however" is rarely needed. The sentence is too long and could be reworded to avoid it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- " Latha said that she was compelled to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts" -compelled isn't the right word here, what you mean is that "Latha was offered a role in the film but had to it turn down due to other filming commitments".
- Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. But I prefer your wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to Naman Ramachandran's Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography, Umachandran's novel and Mahendran's film metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them.[26] According" -rep of according
- It appears to be reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "He also noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing all that is pristine and traditional; although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -doesn't quite read well in one sentence. I don't follow what you mean by "although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -Can you reword?
- I have merged the sentences. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*"with strands of sweetness." -it this a quote, I think it would be best quoted what is said there.
It is a translation. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
[reply]Quote it in English and put the original language in a footnote?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Added original Tamil quote and my own English translation to footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ""A good product needs no publicity, whereas a bad product cannot be pushed in the market however much you publicise it"." -is this supported by ref 50 further down?
- Perhaps you could lose a couple of quotes in the retro views of reception to improve readability and flow
- "The winch in Mullum Malarum prompted director P. V. Prasad to use a winch fo" -no need to repeat, replace winch in second instance with "one"
- "Mullum Malarum appears on several lists of great films. In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film on her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[73] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth on her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth"" -mmm it's a bit of an exaggeration in appearing on several lists of great films though as you mostly cite the best films of the actor. It's not as if it is cited among the greatest Tamil or Indian films top 100 or anything. Perhaps reword to something like "The films consistently ranks as one of Rajinikanth's best films in polls."
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a very good article, I'll be willing to support once the above are addressed. It could still use a little tightening up in the reception section though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't know if you've addressed all points but I think it's nearing the line for FA considering the film industry and time period. It would still benefit from a few more people giving it a read and edit in places perhaps but good enough in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When did the filming take place?
- Didn't find details yet. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In order for this to be comprehensive in coverage, it will need such detail since this is a major aspect of films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How much did the film gross overall?
- Unavailable. I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd. Box office is a pretty big part of film articles, and it would especially help to demonstrate the claims of commercial success.
- But back then, a film's commercial success would be measured by the number of days it runs in theatres. And that has been covered here. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Excluding cast member names, the plot is currently 364 words long. It should be 400–700 words per WP:FILMPLOT.
- I'll try to expand it.Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems redundant to have cast members both in the plot and in a list. If including a cast list, the members need to be referenced; there is nothing in WP:FILMCAST that makes them exempt.
- Though they have already been sourced in the "casting" section, I don't mind sourcing them again in the "cast" section. But there are other cast members who I have not included in the article due to lack of reliable sources, though they appear in the film's opening credits. Can I use that as a source here? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SNUGGUMS, can I use the opening credits of the film as a source here, to add the other cast members? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me. Just remove cast members from the plot section to avoid redundancy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tragic" in "tragic loss" is not neutral.
I never added that term. Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed "tragic". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are "BehindWoods" or "Bollywood Life" reliable?
- The former, yes. The latter, though owned by Zee Network, does not typically qualify as RS. It does conduct exclusive interviews though, and this is one example. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But the accounts are of Mohan V. Raman and Baradwaj Rangan, both are noted journalists here. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, I'd recommend using something else if possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: In Baradwaj Rangan's wordpress URL, it states "Copyright 2005 @ Man's World" in the end of the article. Man's World directs to Man's World (magazine). So I've added it to the citation. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Lemme know when all of my points are fulfilled. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see how the article is now. Suggest improvements if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I currently count 399 words (less than the recommended 400–700) in the plot section, and there's still no time frame for when filming took place. At the very least include a year for filming. If possible, include months as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know a film historian named G. Dhananjayan whose email ID I have. I guess I'll ask him if he has any info on this. But does the plot need anymore c/e now? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot is fine now. Just get a time range for filming and we're good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede. Though I got hold of the director's memoir on the film's making, he has not mentioned any filming dates in it (though Danny states in his books that the film was shot in Sringeri, Ooty, Kundha and Chennai in about 30 days, which I have added). What to do? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strange. I would definitely add to the time range you did get into the lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added it to lead myself. Kailash29792, there are some citations with "Check |archiveurl= value" problems. The Hindu also needs to be italicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Snuggums. This was the reason my activity here reduced in the past several days. BTW, how do I fix the "help" tags that appear on the URLs? I don't know what is wrong with them. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither do I, they seem correctly formatted when I preview with edit mode :/. I've posted a notice here asking for assistance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- UPDATE: Now that all the citations are fixed, I shall support this nomination. However, if you do come across a time range for when filming took place, by all means include it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support : Just read the article, and found nothing questionable. The article is well-written, and definitely meets the FA criteria. Plus this was very informative for me, someone who barely watch old films.Krish | Talk 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to do this! When reading my comments, please bear in mind that I have very limited knowledge of Tamil cinema.
Production
- Since Umachandran does not have an article of their own, I think it would be helpful to give some information about them. Did they specialize in a specific genre of literature, were they well-known... ?
- I wish someone would develop an article on him. But I know not much. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with Venu Chettiar; was he a well-known producer, what types of films did he produce, was this his first production...?
- Repeat above. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that he was not even mentioned in the title credits, I think the bit about Chettiar (in the lead) needs to be trimmed. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm." should be moved to the beginning of the previous para. E.g. "won the first prize in Kalki 's Novel Short Story Competition celebrating the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee. Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm, and decided to adapt it into a film. He outlined..."
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was Mahendran so insistent that Rajinikanth be cast in the lead role?
- I don't know. This may have some info though. Vensatry, it's hard for me to read Tamil (I can read, but, its hard). Can you read and tell me if it has the info you recall? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember reading somewhere that they both became friends during the making of Aadu Puli Attam, where Mahendran worked as a dialogue writer. Can't recall the source though. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: I have written the reason. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mahendran decided to characterise Manga as a "foodie who loves fish" when he saw the location's marine environment." — I think this is the first time in the article that it's mentioned that the film takes place in a location close to the sea, so this sentence is a bit confusing.
The source reads, "For the Rajnikanth starrer Mullum Malarum, which we shot at Sringeri in Karnataka, I decided on the characterisation of Fatapat Jayalakshmi( she plays Manga, Rajnikanth’s wife in the film). She is a foodie who loves fish. This came to me after I observed how there were water bodies and fish everywhere on the location! The song ‘Nitham Nitham Nellu Choru’ enhanced her character." Can it be reworded in a better manner? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
[reply]Hmm, maybe mention in the beginning of the sentence that they had chosen to Sringeri, a town with a river running through and a lively fishing industry, as a filming location and got the idea that this character would be a foodie from that? -THS
*Why were all these different actors cast? Even if you can't find information on the specific reasons for their casting in this project, it might be worth mentioning if they were already big stars or had only just begun their careers; if they were usually cast in roles like the ones they had in this film, etc.
I don't know.
"The film intentionally defied traditional Tamil cinema conventions..." I would mention some of these conventions, as the reader of the article might not be familiar with Tamil cinema.
- Already mentioned them. They include excessive melodrama, fights, duets and dialogue. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*"thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"." Needs citation.
This is already used. Guess I'll reuse it, though it may become WP:CITEKILL. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
[reply]It's a straight quote though, so it needs to be cited. -THS
- "Although Chettiar held up production by not financing a crucial lead scene before the song "Senthazham Poovil" with Sarath Babu and Shoba, Haasan funded the scene." — Why did he hold up the production?
- I guess he did not want the film to go beyond budget. Or it must have been due to differences between him and Mahendran. Or both. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's what the sources say, then you should include it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- You mention that the film was unusually "visually rich" given that Mahendran was a dialogue writer — I'd like to hear more about the specific cinematographic motifs, styles, etc. that were used instead of dialogue. Did the filmmakers refer to any films as inspiration for this film?
- The "Legacy" section mentions, "Discarding traditional melodrama, fights, duet songs and extensive dialogue, the film focused on visual realism", with a source. I guess I need not say more. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was that it would improve the article to explain what you mean by 'visual realism'. At the moment all I know about this film is that it didn't use extensive dialogue, fight scenes, or duet songs; there's little information on the types of effects and motifs the film uses to tell the story instead. 'Realism' is a very broad term, so it's not immediately clear what you mean by it – this is why you should mention specific techniques and motifs that the filmmakers used. For example, filmmakers striving to create a sense of the 'ordinary life' often choose colours and saturation that makes the film look bland in contrast to the vivid colours of Technicolor fantasy films; they might film with a handheld camera in order to give the film a more realistic, spontaneous style; they might prefer to film on location rather than on a sound stage...TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- TrueHeartSusie3, I got something (translated from Mahendran's book): "I was writing the screenplay as if I was writing a personal diary about my thoughts. I knew very well no producer would like it because it did not have the usual melodrama, overacting, lengthy dialogues, duet and routine climax. In other words it did not have any of the commercial formula which I successfully handled in my story-dialogue till then. It happened exactly as I thought." I guess he is saying that he took inspiration from nothing and that visual realism was his own idea. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think adding that quote could work, but what I meant is that you need to explain what visual realism means in this film's case. For example, if you look at "Themes and analysis" in American Beauty (1999 film), you'll find paragraphs like this: "Mendes called American Beauty a rites of passage film about imprisonment and escape from imprisonment. The monotony of Lester's existence is established through his gray, nondescript workplace and characterless clothing. In these scenes, he is often framed as if trapped, "reiterating rituals that hardly please him". He masturbates in the confines of his shower; the shower stall evokes a jail cell and the shot is the first of many where Lester is confined behind bars or within frames, such as when he is reflected behind columns of numbers on a computer monitor, "confined [and] nearly crossed out"". In other words, we not only get to know that Mendes wanted to portray Lester as a man trapped in his middle class life, but we're given examples of how they used film as a medium to express this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- TrueHeartSusie3: Thank you for the comment. I got another quote translated from the book: "MGR told Mahendran that he has proved that cinema is a visual medium with the actor's excellent performance and minimum dialogue." From this I guess they are saying that "visual realism" means the realistic/arthouse feel to a film sans the typical mainstream-attracting commercial elements like fights, dance, out-of-story comedy, etc. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but then what does 'arthouse feel' mean... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
"Themes
- I don't understand what you mean by this: "that although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness". Do you mean that the filmmakers omit any criticism of 'real' poverty and the system which has produced it, instead making a statement that the poor can be "rich in moral uprightness" though not in a material way? I would rephrase this so that it's clearer.
- The author S. Rajanayagam states, "In such films, the poor are glamourised, and stereotyped as representing all that is pristine and traditional. The overall socio-economic system, which has made them poor, is unchallenged. Within the system, however, the hero will be 'richer' in terms of his moral uprightness." Does it solve anything? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it would be better to include that quote. EDIT: even if you don't add the quote, you will need to paraphrase it. At the moment, you've included significant sections of his statements word for word, but without quote marks. –THS
- I have included the quote as it is and put it within quotation marks. Anyone may paraphrase it to the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day, he puts henna on her feet at night while she is asleep." What's the significance of putting henna on her feet? This is not clear for someone ignorant about Tamil culture.
- I guess he was trying to be kind to her. In fact, women here (in India) love applying henna on their hands and feet. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe add something like "he tries to show his affection for her by putting henna..." But since it doesn't seem that henna is in any way symbolic, but simply a beauty practice that he wants to do to show his affection, I don't think it is actually that important to clarify it; I initially thought it might have some kind of more important meaning at first! -THS
*"Mullum Malarum explores the theme of egotism, with Kali, the community's alpha male, surrounded by sycophants who massage his ego." According to whom?
- Naman Ramachandran. I don't wish to overuse the line "according to", so please suggest something else. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:::Unless its a general fact that MM is about egotism, you need to attribute it. However, you don't have to go with 'according to' every time; how about "NR states that..." or "NR regards egotism as one of the central themes in MM." ? -THS
- Done: I have mentioned Ramachandran at the beginning of the sentence. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
*"there were problems with its release. After Haasan's intervention..." What were the problems? Also, I think you could give Haasan's full name and profession here again, I had completely forgotten who he is. Also, how did he intervene?
- This source reads, "When Rajnikanth’s yesteryear classic ‘Mullum Malarum’ had some problem in getting released. Kamal Haasan sorted out the issues and got the film released". Should that solve anything? BTW, Kamal Haasan has already been introduced in "Production". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we don't know what the problems were, then it's fine not to alter that bit. I know Haasan was mentioned before, but it's worth mentioning his name and profession again, because it's confusing if the reader has to go back and forth. Remember that the reader of this article may not have heard of any of these people before, therefore we shouldn't assume that they'll be able to remember every name, especially if they've only been mentioned once before. -THS
- We should either use 'Kamal' or 'Kamal Haasan'. Nobody calls him 'Haasan' (except for a few presses in North India). —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor." Why?
- In the sections on reviews and legacy, you sometimes write simply "X stated..."; given how few of the critics have Wikipedia articles, I think it would be helpful to mention whether they are film critics, film scholars, filmmakers, etc. For example, I have no idea who Baradwaj Rangan is and why I should think his/her opinion is notable enough to be included.
- Did you read the section "Music"? Baradwaj Rangan has been introduced and wikilinked there. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, but again, you cannot expect your readers to be able to remember every name. You can expect them to remember all the main people involved in this film (e.g. lead actors, screenwriter, director, producer), but if someone has been mentioned only once, chances are the reader doesn't remember them and will be confused. -THS
Legacy
- "There might be very few or even no movie that revolves mainly the brother-sister relationship." Is there a word missing here?
- I don't know. Should I add sic? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a native speaker though, so you might want to check with someone else before adding sic. -THS
- I think this section would be easier to take in if you began each paragraph with a description of what the para is about. E.g. if you are going to discuss the ways in which specific filmmakers have been influenced by the film, begin the paragraph with "Several filmmakers have credited Mullum Malarum as inspiration for their works.".
- In general I think this section might need to be restructured. For example, in para #3, you begin by listing praise from others, and then in the middle of the para mention that the film was the basis for a tv show. I don't understand the connection between the praise and the tv show.
- Agree with THS. The TV show is totally unrelated (except for the name) to the film and is trivial. Ditto with Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed info about the TV show. But the line Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi is a pun on one of MM's dialogues. So I thought it could stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a pun, it would be helpful to have a footnote with English translations of the titles and an explanation of the pun, if appropriate. -Susie
- If several filmmakers have simply said that MM inspired them to become filmmakers, I think you could synthesize by saying "XYZ have stated that Mullum Malarum inspired them to become filmmakers" instead of including very similar quotes from all of them.
- "G. Dhananjayan wrote that it is one of five films the actor considers "close to his heart"; the other four are Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977), Aarilirunthu Arubathu Varai (1979), Enkeyo Ketta Kural (1982) and Sri Raghavendrar (1985)" I don't think you need to mention the other films.
- Not mentioning the other four would create vagueness, so I mentioned them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe move them to a footnote? -THS
- Yes, a FN would do. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Added footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, when his script for Azhagiya Kuyilae had no takers he directed the big-budget Gentleman (1993) and never got to make the small-budget film." What's the relevance of this fact to this article?
I also don't think this should be included: "In January 2011 Rajinikanth saw Aadukalam, starring his son-in-law Dhanush. Impressed with his performance, he said: "This film will take Dhanush to the next level just like what Mullum Malarum did to me";[95] Dhanush's performance earned him the National Film Award for Best Actor." Same for the playback singer's opinion.
- Yes, the bit about Aadukalam is WP:UNDUE. Also, Suchitra's quote contains this factually incorrect claim (I understand that's her opinion though): 'though it was only his third film'. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How much of info from the Shankar interview do I keep? BTW, I've removed the information on Suchitra and Dhanush. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any need to include anything beyond a mention that MM inspired him to become a filmmaker. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- Shankar has stated, "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". How do I paraphrase this? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still ok to just state that MM was one of the films which inspired Shankar to become a filmmaker. He has his own article, the rest should be discussed there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- In general, this section has too little information on MM's place in film history, and too much praise that is not very informative on why it deserves this praise. After reading it, I know that this film is considered a classic, but I am not sure why, beyond the fact that it was more visual than previous Tamil films and portrayed sibling relationships in a realistic way.
Overall, I think this is an interesting article close to becoming a FA. I understand that some of my points might be impossible to address due to lack of available information. When polishing the article, remember that its readers might have very little previous information of Tamil film history. Hope this is helpful! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm liking the improvements so far! I don't know if you'll find this helpful, but whenever I'm writing a "Legacy" section, I'll try to keep in mind the question "How would film history be different if this film had not been made?" This helps in focusing on the reasons why a film is notable, without giving undue weight to people simply saying that it's notable.
Unfortunately, I've spotted several issues in "Themes"; you need to add quotation marks to direct quotes, or (preferable in most cases) paraphrase them. For example, the following seem to be direct quotes but have not been attributed as such:
- " to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them"
* "an angry young man with a kind heart"
- Done: put within quotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* "the Oedipal possessiveness by a married brother of his younger sister"
- Done: put within quotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept it doesn't sound formal and is in need of replacement, but the line is already attributed to Naman Ramachandran. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: I think "massaging one's ego" means complimenting him (translation source: [52]). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the issue isn't the phrase itself, the issue is that you cannot repeat the exact words of an author without indicating that you're directly quoting them. Doing that is plagiarism. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
* "presentable and educated"
- I thought this is quite formal and neutral. Or should I write "relatively presentable and educated"? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Removed them both as they sound POV; BTW engineers are supposed to be presentable and educated. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeat my comment above. But what else can I write? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here isn't the language, it's the direct quoting without clearly indicating that you're quoting directly (which means that you're essentially plagiarizing). I'm sorry but I think I will have to withdraw from this entire process, it's been going on for such a long time now.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In general, I think you might want to reword most of the material relating to Ramachandran's statements – just replacing couple of words but keeping the overall structure of a sentence is not a good way to paraphrase. E.g. you write "As a subordinate, Kali cannot oppose Kumaran; his frustration threatens to erupt several times", and Ramachandran writes in his book "Being a subordinate, Kaali cannot really oppose him in any way and his frustration threatens to bubble over several times..." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- You may withdraw as you please. And I am sorry for delaying to answer most of your comments. But thank you for giving them anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to clarify what I meant above, but yeah, otherwise I think it's for the best for me to step aside. Personally, I'd like to see more information about the style of the film. Please let me know if I wasn't clear enough with what I've written about certain phrases in Themes – again, the issue isn't the language or POV, it's the direct quoting. Even if you write "X writes that...", and give the source in a footnote, you cannot use X's exact words if you don't put them in quotes. You should always try to paraphrase if possible, because in the worst case scenario the article will end up looking like a quote farm. Best of luck! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- You succeeded in clarifying as I actually understood what you said, which is why I removed Ramachandran's quotes "massage his ego" (replaced with compliment) and "presentable and educated" (removed with no replacement). I also attributed the quote "the Oedipal possessiveness of a married brother for his younger sister" to Yves Thoraval, using double-quotation marks. I don't find any other issue. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on sourcing
- The article extensively makes use of two books written by G. Dhananjayan—The Best of Tamil Cinema, 1931 to 2010: 1977–2010 and Pride of Tamil Cinema: 1931 to 2013. Although the latter had won a special mention at the 62nd National Film Awards, it looks like a WP:MIRROR, as the book paraphrases stuff from Wikipedia articles and the NFA archives of Directorate of Film Festivals. Since the article relies heavily on these two books, I'm opposing it momentarily. That said, I'm also concerned about the reliability of the following sources: Oneindia, Behindwoods, Raaga.com, VUIN.com, APTalkies.com, india-seminar.com (I know this is from BR), Bollywood Mantra, and Sify (I'm not sure if it's acceptable in FAs). —Vensatry (Talk) 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed Oneindia, Raaga, APTalkies, Bollywood Mantra and VUIN, even though the VUIN article's title reads, "A VUIN Exclusive". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Vensatry, are you opposing the usage of Sify in articles like this because it is an online source with no print edition? Because you see other web-only sources like Behindwoods, Koimoi, IndiaGlitz, etc. in the same perspective. In fact, Behindwoods have gained remarkable media coverage through their "Gold Medal" ceremonies, and have no reputation for giving false info. And while both Danny's books do contain considerable plagiarism from us (I feel his National Award should be revoked for this), the Mullum Malarum chapters in both of them contain none. I'll even send you the pages for proof. Should that mean that the books can still be used here as sources? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the existing FAs (except your articles) use the aforesaid sources. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Budget and Box-office information should be mentioned in the infobox.
- Unavailable; I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information on films. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Its personal, but you might wanna replace some convoluted words like "tumultuous" and "tepid" with something more formal.
- Mention the names who have played "Kali" and "Kumaran" in bracket during plot synopsis.
- I actually removed it on another editor's suggestion to avoid WP:OVERLINK. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Behindwoods is a reliable source; it was accepted during Enthiran's FAC. Bollywood Life contains an exclusive interview (I don't know what to do in this case), tamilcinemamusic.com contains an old review of the film by Ananda Vikatan. I don't know what's wrong with Lokvani. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Behindwoods was never discussed in either of the FACs of Enthiran. But i see that its extensively used as a source. And i also see that it was a promotional partner of the film and with such a COI it should not have been used there in the first place. Anyways, arguing that its used there and hence its RS is just OSE. Publishing "exclusive interview" doesn't make them reliable. That way I could catch hold of a minor regional celebrity in a market, ask them some questions and make my blog RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bollywood Life has been removed now. As for Behindwoods, what do I do to prove its reliability? Ssven2, I bet you can rework the Enthiran magic here (i.e., how you succeeded in using Behindwoods as a source there). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to G. Dhananjayan's The Best of Tamil Cinema, but his Pride of Tamil Cinema explicitly mentions Wikipedia articles as its sources. It also cites some websites that would be considered questionable by WP:RS standards. Therefore, its use as a reference in an FA is questionable. utcursch | talk 06:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you get access to Pride? BTW, please note if there are other "questionable" sources in the article, and I'll contemplate removing them. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's available as a Preview on Google Books. utcursch | talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main outstanding point of disagreement I see here concerns the reliability of sourcing. @Nikkimaria and Brianboulton:, could one of you pls check and offer your thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh! Due to having to remove one source (Pride), now the shape of the article itself has changed. I was forced to remove it because someone pointed out that it plagiarises us (less than 50% of the book is plagiarised, and the Mullum Malarum chapter in particular contains no plagiarism). Still, as you say, I have removed excessive use of that source, except for the instances where the author has quoted other people that is otherwise unavailable. I request that this FAC be withdrawn as I see the article isn't good enough yet and I plan to rework it. Just I would like you to list here the other "questionable" sources used in this article so I can contemplate removing/replacing them. Without further comment I will, for the first time, accept my failure in a self-nominated FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the nom is withdrawn and closed, there should be no further edits to this page (a link to it will automatically be put under Article History on the article talk page by the FACbot) -- best probably to use a new section on the article talk page for a list of problematic sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2016 [53].
- Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the national association football (or soccer) team of Belgium, more specifically the senior men's team. I believe it should be featured because of the broad scope and the high care given to sourcing, prose and illustrations. Comments of independent editors were "[g]ood work", "quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this" and "excellent, thorough and widely comprehensive". After it obtained GA status, a double peer review and copy editing by members of the GOCE (among others) lead to further prose improvement. Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Already of high quality during PR, it only got better since. Congratulations, Kareldorado. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (note personal involvement: I nominated the article for DYK after it became GA, I am not involved with the content) - Good overview of the topic, supported by sufficient decent references. Reads well, neutral wording, no recent changes. It has been checked by enough editors, and has sufficient maintenance by the author, that I feel comfortable to support this article for featured article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments taking a look now. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Need to link to Brazil and West Germany national teams at first mention in body of text.
- Good point, I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Through the History section, a sprinkling of notes on key players at various periods would be good. I'd incorporate the notable players section into the chronology.
- That was also what I had done before. However, this greatly expands the History section and I think it gives the reader less appetite to keep reading through it. On the reverse, it is a lot easier to find things about the team as a whole, and about notable players if you have these sections apart. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok more of a style thing and not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a traditional predominance of either french or flemish speaking players?
- Irrelevant IMO, but probably a Flemish speaking majority most often since most (roughly 60%) Belgians live in Flanders. In the 1980s and 1990s most well-known players were Flemish speaking, except for Michel Preud'homme, Philippe Albert and Enzo Scifo. Note that some notable players have been from Brussels and accordingly are pretty much bilangual (Van Himst, Kompany, Lukaku). Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have significant issues over WP:RECENTISM in the History section, a common issue in such articles. To illustrate my point: you've squeezed 60 years of history into one paragraph, followed by 35 years over 3 paragraphs, which is a sixfold increase in space allocated per year. I do understand that those were underachieving years, but nonetheless... --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good remark in order to shift the article towards more balance, Dweller. I want to stress that originally the 1920-1979 period took three paragraphs and it was stuffed with multiple sentences on notable players. However, the situation is what it is, and to compensate for it I think it would be good that I would (among others) add another sentence illustrating the "world champion of the friendlies" nickname in the 1970s, and further squeeze the 2002-2012 underachievement years. Do you have suggestions for other interesting things to mention for the 1920-1979 period? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I already made it more equilibrated now, but feel free to give additional comments or to carry on materials that you might find relevant for the 1920-1979 era. Kareldorado (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better now, thanks. I've not reviewed thoroughly enough to support, but I have no issues with the nomination. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: The article is excellent, but, to further improve it for FA quality, I encourage Karel to turn the tables and look at the article from the perspective of the reader. And not just any reader, but one that is not necessarily a football fan. This is a strategy that I follow in the articles that I write because, at the end of the day, I am more interested in knowing people were not bogged down by excessive information and stats.
- I couldn't agree more, and therefore I hope this review also attracts 'less interested' people, in the sense that they are not specifically interested in football or sports. Other people can provide fresh views, however, I feel lucky that editors like you can also still provide new insights. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- The nickname "Red Devils" is presented here and in the kit section. I would recommend for the information in the history to be integrated with the one in the kit section (as it would be easier to find this in that section than in the history).
- I opted for moving over this part into the "Mascot and logo"-sect as the nickname served 3 of 4 times as inspiration for the logo; since every mascot was also a logo I made it "Nickname and logo". Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- Is it really necessary to mention the low-countries derby in the history? I don't think there's a need to repeat information.
- True, it is already clearly mentioned in the lead and the rivalries section (where it is stated that these were cup matches) - dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- Why is it important for the reader to know that three Belgian players died in the First World War?
- This is not necessarily a rhetorical question; note that there have been other events in which multiple sportsmen died that were considered noteworthy (see Munich air disaster and Munich massacre). If many more - say, 10 - national team members had died, it probably would have been more notable. Since it seems very likely that similar numbers of casualties due to wars happened to other sports teams as well, I must agree that this sentence was probably not that important, so I dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- Ideally, match scores should be placed only if truly necessary (and, I would argue that there is no real necessity for it in the history section; notable results should be present in the records sections). I think removing them and smoothing out the narrative would improve the prose (and flow of the reading).
- Ok, I dropped them... what's your opinion on the "Competitive record" sections - would you leave out most scores there as well? Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- Why is it important to highlight that Brazil's Pele confirmed something about Belgium? I think the source is good enough.
- Not that important, I simply wanted to show that this mock title was not just an inside joke of Belgians, but that it was also used elsewhere. I dropped the sentence part now and kept the source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- Overall, the section's best paragraphs are those where you narrate the story. The not-as-good are those where you rely more on the results. This is nothing to specifically address, but wanted to point it out just as a general thought.
- True, but the painful thing is that sometimes there is simply not an exciting story to be told instead... so then I am stuck with mentioning results. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Structure
- Team image should not be the last section. Think of it like a sports book or magazine. It is usually at the end where the stats and records are located (and these should, therefore, be the last sections). Where to place it? Probably somewhere before the players section. I'd recommend before or after rivalries.
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Team image
- The actions section would be better if it was not listed with bullet points. Can you craft a narrative version of it with the available information?
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Players
- Why not make the "Previous squads" subsection into a table and place it at the end of the article (similar to Peru national football team)? I think it would help remove the excessive weight in the section.
- Players
- along the same lines, I would highly recommend for the "Player records" section to be mixed with the "Records and fixtures" section (which I would rename "Team records and fixtures"—I plan to do the same for the Peru article). Why? Because these are not just player records, but they are records for the team itself (i.e., specific to Belgium).
- Partially done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Records and Fixtures
- I would place this section at the end.
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the thoughts I have in mind at the moment. I hope they are not too much! Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 08:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they are not few but I welcome every constructive remark! I am not sure I can make every adaptation this weekend, but we will see. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and good job. If you can indicate some of the sentences that still appear to be rather long, I'll give it a try to further cut them down. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord notes -- Hi Kareldorado, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC? A belated welcome in that case! It looks to me that we still need:
- Image licensing review
- Source review for formatting and reliability
- Source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask newbies to jump through
These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or one or two of the reviewers above might be able to oblige... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to point this out. I have been more busy last week irl, but in upcoming couple of days I will do the request. Kareldorado (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Current Staff: I don't see any reason to list a number of anonymous employees — podiatrist, nutritionist, video analyst, etc — in this section. A number of national and club football articles have become bloated by adding every employee listed on the team's website, even though these employees are not discussed in secondary sources. We should just keep the manager, the principal assistant coaches, and not many more than that. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your view and - partly - agree. The fact that they work more behind the scenes does not mean that their role is trivial, however. A podiatrist is a orthopedical physician, and because of that function seems notable. Wilmots stressed the importance of his analyst at some moments. However, I did not add staff that 'merely' fulfill an administrative function, like the makers of T-shirts and PR-representatives. I stand open for discussion, however, and am willing to drop these staff. Any other people's views? Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why we need for medical personnel to get their own table, nor the need to list seven people here, most of whom the public has never heard of. The fact that the only cite here is to the RBFA website and not to any reliable independent secondary source is telling. Are there reliable independent secondary sources discussing how important these people are to the team's success? I am, however, like you, interested in others' views on this topic. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the table has been removed. That resolves my concern on this issue. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Competitive record: Not a fan of hiding all the tables. I quite enjoy glancing through articles and seeing a table of the World Cup record, and I suspect a number of casual wiki readers won't realize they can easily unhide the table. I am in favor, however, of not showing tables of every minor tournament the country has played in. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but what I oppose is that probably many readers are not fans of scrolling and keeping on scrolling. These tables won't get shorter, it will be the opposite. The tables are good and made with the needed detail, however, they would explode the visual size and the weight of numbers and statistics if expanded, IMO. Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we don't want all these tables displayed fully here, as that would lead to a lot of clutter. However, I don't like the current red boxes on the page, they seem a bit of an eyesore to me. One option would be to list the World Cup table in full, but erase the other tables completely and put them on the linked pages. These are just my suggestions on how to improve, and I don't feel strongly, so if you think it's best left the way it is, so be it. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable players: These sections often create issues, particularly where they include current players, as various fans keep adding their favourite. The list of today's players in this article has 17 players. Surely half or even most of these are not among the best ever for Belgium. For example, the forward Origi has netted only 3 goals for Belgium in his career. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Licensing Review
- File:Gust De Muynck Belgium-Netherlands 1931.jpg ([54]) is missing a US public domain tag
- File:Édouard De Laveleye.jpg ([55]) is missing a US public domain tag
- File:BEL-LUX SO1928.JPG ([56]) is missing a US public domain tag
- File:1920 Olympic football final (Belgium v. Czechoslovakia), penalty Coppée.jpg ([57]) is missing a US public domain tag
- Brief comment on references: I generally keep the bibliography as a separate section from the references section. I also think that it would help make the article less bulky.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; licenses have been added and the bibliography stands apart now. Kareldorado (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed finding out facts about the team. And a team that ranks number one surely deserves a featured article.
A few comments about the lead:
- 1904. I'm not a fan of link labels that don't give a good sense of where it links to, and you have a few of those in the article. The 1904 in the first sentence is a good example. A link 1904 should go to the 1904 page, that's what happens elsewhere on WP. But I don't think that is useful here, we want a link to the Évence Coppée Trophy page. So better would be to rephrase the lead and spell it out.
- I agree, put a better alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we need a footnote with the names in the 3 local languages in the lead. Further down maybe, although I'd nix it altogether.
- Edwin, do you mean both the translation of the official name and the nickname?. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, why tell the user the translations? This is the English wikipedia. I don't see any other similar article doing this. Peru national football team does not give the Spanish. Say I would could footnote B altogether. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "alternated with major difficulties in qualifying" is rather vague and leaves the reader guessing: did or didn't they ever qualify?
- Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is where they play so important that it warrants mentioning in the first paragraph? I don't think so.
- I don't know, but several featured football team articles do mention it. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well, just leave it then. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the 3rd paragraph should be dismantled. The first two sentences do not have any notable info that justifies being in the lead. The next sentence "After winning four games at the three Olympic football tournaments in the 1920s, the team failed to win matches at any major tournament finals in the next four decades. " largely repeats what already was mentioned earlier. The last sentence could be rewritten and merged with the golden eras paragraph.
- I largely agree and kept the core items. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "qualified for Euro 2016" that doesn't strike me as making it a golden generation. I would drop it. Key fact is they top the FIFA ranking.
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More later, once I've got my football bible, The Ball is Round, in front of me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as you enjoyed reading it, I now enjoy receiving these justified comments, Edwin. Upcoming week (and as soon as possible irl) I will try to apply and/or comment to all of these remarks and suggestions. I am also looking forward to your fresh input based on your football bible. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've made minor changes already, as you may have noticed, hope you agreed with those, and here are my comments for remainder of the article. My main concern is about links. Sorry, but I just feel strongly about having good links, as unpredictable links damage WP's overall user experience as well. I'll explain below:
- "Belgium was the first mainland European country to play association football". In The Ball is Round Goldblatt writes that Denmark was the first in Europe outside the British Isles to set up a club (1876), and organise themselves nationally (1889). See page 120. He does not give a date for when the first balls were kicked in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Belgium, the first beachgeads of football on the continent (p. 119). "one of the first" seems to be a good way to describe this.
- Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "does not recognise these results" I'm not keen on this being a link. Once you start internal links like that, then for consistency many other mentioned results should also link. I think it detracts more than it gains. I checked the Peru national football team page, of FA status, and that has no internal links as far as I can see. The link for "unrecognised friendlies" is equally dubious: instead of finding out what is meant by unrecognised (as happens with the link for exhibition matches) the reader is unexpectedly shown a list of results. I would not link that either. My view is to have no internal links at all, but am keen to hear what other, more experienced editors think.
- I agree for both reasons. Kareldorado (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "the first manager of the Red Devils" This is the first time the Red Devils are mentioned outside the lead. I couldn't find anything in the MoS, but more experienced editors might be able to advise whether it's fine here or whether the Red Devils needs to be introduced here as the nickname, with explanation. I would explain. In any case, in the lead it is in italics, here it is not, and in the Kit section it is in quotes. My interpretation of the MoS is that italics is not advised, not sure about quotes. I'd opt for just plain text. Whatever you choose, be consistent with the White Devils.
- There used to be a long explanation about the Red Devils just before saying "the first manager of the Red Devils"... I will re-introduce that info in a short sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "As the White Devils, Belgium had" I think linking is used here to avoid explanation. I would just explain and no link.
- Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "At Euro 1972, their first Euro appearance, they finished third. " For such a significant result, there is not enough information. Whom did they lose to in the semis? Or at least Who did they beat to win bronze?
- Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Beginning with a second-place finish at Euro 1980," again more info needed. Fewer words are spent on this than on some friendlies against Morocco, Cyprus Japan, which feels wrong. Link to the UEFA Euro 1980 Final page
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not keen at all on the link labels for the various years. Users will expect it to go to a generic page about the year. See if you can rewrite to "Euro 1984" etc
- Link to the 2002 World Cup is missing
- "and took the top spot" it sounds so much like an afterthought, while it deserves a sentence on its own. It's too significant to be hidden away.
- Home stadium section: I think there is too much irrelevant info here. Good info, but relevant only on the stadium's own page, not here. I bet one paragraph suffices.
- See also: Television in Belgium: another example of overlinking.
- I agree, not really an article about the Belgium NFT in the media. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Decades later, television became a more popular medium for football broadcasts" seems plausible, although the radio was very popular before tv. In any case, my point is: source?
- I cannot defend this claim, so I dropped it now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "As 59 per cent of the Belgians speak Dutch and 41 per cent French,... third official language in Belgium" also needs a source
- "matches are transmitted in both languages" sounds a bit odd, maybe "matches' commentaries", or maybe rephrase to something with "both Dutch and French channel"?
- I admit it sounded a bit odd, so I tried to make it more logical saying the commentaries are provided in both languages. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily odd, but at least not clear enough - one might think of support in the financial or medical meaning or so, so I also opt for "Supporters". Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "as of 2014" are any up to date numbers available?
- "a defensive tactic developed in the 1960s by Anderlecht coach Pierre Sinibaldi." Goldblatt on page 187 talks about offsite traps used by Newcastle Utd in the 1920s. So developed should not be read as invented. Maybe a bit of rephrasing. Sorry my French is not good enough to understand the source.
- True; the article describes him as someone who systematically applied it and a perfectionist but he did not necessarily invent the tactic or made it perfect either, so I rephrased it. Kareldorado (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Master tactician" Goethals .. "not be bigger" When quotation marks are used the person saying it should be mentioned.
- Ok, I mentioned him now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the staff is notable enough beyond assistant coach and goalie coach. A whole table for this takes up way too much space. A simple sentence should suffice. The Peru page does not have this.
- There has been debate about this, but I also think these are the very core figures of the staff, so I followed your suggestion. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "nearly blind" is said by whom?
- Fixed it. I will try to make sure that every quote with " " will be accompanied by the person to have said so. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The show and hide doesn't do it for me. The legend is visible when WC record is hidden.
- Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Forward Robert Coppée had converted .. pitch in the 40th minute" needs a source
- "discussed early penalty" is that disputed or much talked about?
- The first meaning; I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out this convertor, I didn't know that this switch could be made easily. Kareldorado (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked the sources. If no one else does, I could, if you'd like me to. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work, from tomorrow on I can try to solve multiple issues a day. We can await the demand for source checking at the Talk page a couple more days - you did already an incredible effort - but else, yes, you'd be welcome to do so. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- I'm seeing inconsistency in source name formatting (see fn 2 and 7, for example).
- Fn 32: Why is a cited source in Further Reading? And how are we citing it if we don't know the page number?
- This is a difficult one. The second source mentions the first source to have mentioned it (naming the book with author and title). However, I don't have access to the 1978 book itself... Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Several web sources are missing "retrieved" dates (see fn 59 and 64, for example).
- Fn 75: What makes this a reliable site per WP:RS?
- Fn 82: What makes this a reliable site per WP:RS?
- Fn 152: Page number? I don't understand your remark about "numberless book pages".
- The thing is simple: these are pages from the books that are mentioned (and can be accessed through the links), but for some reason the page numbers are not visible or made unvisible. A quick search with Ctrl+F (or readthrough in case of a single page) can lead to the quote. Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Same problem as the previous. Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources need a fair amount of work to properly formatted with the missing information. --Laser brain (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot check
- Fn 34a, OK.
- Fn 49, OK.
- Fn 63, OK.
- Fn 70 fails verification: Leads to a page of scores. I don't see any article with this title. Maybe you have the wrong link there?
- It used to be the good link, but apparently it was not a permanent link to the article - I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that a large number of the sources are in Dutch and I can't check them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch source spot check
- ref 2 is used in infobox, but source says Wilmots is coach only till 2014. Surely there is a source for his current contract
- I replaced it with the article stating that he prolongs his contract until 2018. Kareldorado (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 ok
- 7 ok
- 11 ok
- 19 not ok. Ref should link to page 2 of the list on the target website. Page 1 shows no official matches 14-18
- Fixed. Kareldorado (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 20: source reports on Belgium France, but nothing about exclusively, and it is written before the war ended
- Totally correct, so I omitted "only". Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 54 ok
- 79 fails verification. This page is not about football.
- Yes and no. Via this page, easily pictures can be looked up showing the jerseys the Belgian team wore in several years. Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is sufficient. I think the guidelines say the article should do the hard work, not the reader. Are there any other sources you have used in this way? I noticed that 77,Historical Football Kits, is also not giving me Belgium kits. I had to click Euro 2016 and then search for Belgium to get to it. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 84 mentions different years for Adidas (till 1991) and Diadora "Adidas (1974-80), Admiral (1980-1982), Adidas (1982-90), Diadora (1990-98), Nike (1998-2010) en Burrda (2010-14).
- I know. Even though this is an experienced journalist, other sources prove him wrong about the skip from Diadora to Nike (in 1999). It is not certain whether Admiral already had a contract with the RBFA in 1980, but what's sure is that the team didn't play in Admiral shirts yet in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case we can't use this source to back up the 1991, need the other sources. Maybe also add a footnote to explain conflict in sources? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 87 ok
- 126 ok
- 133 ok
- 192 Buddenberg : ok
- 198 Sportflitsen: ok
- Footnote I: "whose teams did not reach the semi-finals" needs a source
- True, done. Kareldorado (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Edwininlondon (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- You introduce the UBSSA, without using their full name. I would use their full name and have the acronym after it.
- "In 1910, Scottish former footballer..." I would change to former Scottish footballer
- As mentioned above, you still have some Easter Egg links such as 1920. I would change these to represent what the reader is being linked. For instance 1920 -> 1920 Summer Olympics
- "all-time-high second place at the World Football Elo Ratings." at is the wrong preposition, it should be in instead.
- "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics..." comma after olympics
- "Fully dressed in white, as the White Devils Belgium..." Comma after Devils
- "cost Belgium the finals." this makes it sound like it stopped them from winning the World Cup. Reword it to say cost Belgium qualification to the finals.
- "in the 1980 final..." link to the final and give the score of the match, narrow loss is not useful for the reader. How narrow? Seeing as this is the only major final, Belgium have reached, there should be a bit more detail as well. It's certainly more important, than three friendly tournaments in Morocco, Cyprus and Japan for example.
- "World Cup final stages..." -> World Cup finals
- "Managers Guy Thys, Paul Van Himst and Robert Waseige guided the Belgian team past the first round." this sentence is confusing. Were they all managers? I'm assuming they were the three managers during the period? Be a bit more explicit
- "at the continental level..." -> at subsequent European Championships
- "yet in 2002..." comma after 2002
- "and made the World Cup..." change made to reached
- "These players used mostly defensive skills next to a strong midfield." this needs citing
- "After a second stint of Georges Leekens as national manager..." -> After Georges Leekens' second stint as manager
- "Under him the team's performance improved..." -> Following his appointment, the team's performances improved, with some...
- comma before ref 89
- "the venue was christened Jubilee Stadium..." the venue was christened the Jubilee Stadium
- "named for the late..." -> named after the late
- "As 59 per cent of
the Belgians..."
- "have been purchasing broadcasting..." -> have purchased broadcasting
- "During the 2014 World Cup qualifiers..." comma after qualifiers
- "In June 2013..." comma after 2013
- "In 2010 a home Euro 2012 qualifier was given the theme of respect for diversity..." change to A home Euro 2012 qualifier was given the theme of respect for diversity in 2012. This is to avoid it feel like you are listing points with sentences begin with In...
- "European and world championships..." -> European Championships and World Cup
- "The many players who appeared in foreign high-level football leagues and the promising results under Marc Wilmots..." -> The presence of Belgian players in top foreign leagues, such as the Premier League, and promising results under Marc Wilmots, increased fan's..."
- inaugurational World Cup should be inaugural World Cup
- "In the 1990 FIFA World Cup, Belgium dominated their second-round match against England by periods..." do you mean dominated periods of the match? This sentence also needs citing
- "In 2014, Belgium beat all their group opponents with the smallest margin." What do you mean by the smallest margin? Be explicit
- I don't see any use to having the World Cup record table collapsed, it should be on full view for readers.
- Also, both of those table do not comply with MOS:DTT as far as I can see. They col and rowscopes adding to them.
- "With four successful qualification campaigns out of 13..." MOS:NUM states that comparative quantities, should either be both in numerals or written out, not of each.
- It's stated that Fernand Nisot was the youngest player to play for Belgium, yet neither source states this or gives his age when he first played. Likewise for the oldest player.
- What makes eu-football.info a reliable source?
- not very reassuring when ref 32 has the page number as ?
- ref 66 has no accessdate
- likewise ref 69
- ref 163 needs an en dash
I'm sorry, but I have to regretfully oppose for now. I have uncovered a lot of issues with the prose and grammar and the formatting and reliability of some refs is in question for me. Maybe it's best the article gets a copyedit and is re-nominated thereafter. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- while some of the points above re. expression are arguable, there are enough concerns raised at this late stage of proceedings that I think we need to call a halt and sort them out away from FAC; you can renominate after a minimum of two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Fixed. Please let me know if there are any left that need to be corrected.--Երևանցի talk 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Celebrities removed. --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
![[54]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Gust_De_Muynck_Belgium-Netherlands_1931.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:%C3%89douard_De_Laveleye.jpg){kind=link}
![[56]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:BEL-LUX_SO1928.JPG){kind=link}
![[57]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:1920_Olympic_football_final_%28Belgium_v._Czechoslovakia%29,_penalty_Copp%C3%A9e.jpg){kind=link}