Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Copa Libertadores/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:52, 19 July 2010 [1].

Copa Libertadores[edit]

Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because because it has long-met the criteria and qualifications specified in order to become such. This article definetly makes the bar. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—no dab links, but dead external links to http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_3393_1.html, http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_3397_1.html, http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_3395_1.html, http://www.oncecaldas.com.co/his_titulos.php?UID_ANO=ANOWW0000004 . Also, the lead contains a dangling modifier ("Despite being a South American competition, ..."), peacock language ("gaining the attention of 135 nations worldwide"), and excessive references (references in the lead are rarely needed, but putting the same ref on five consecutive sentences is even worse, especially when the facts sourced are as controversial as the tournament format). In the first few paragraphs of the "History" section, there are grammatical errors ("no least thanks"), redundant wording ("back in the 1930s"), and non-sequitur pieces ("a healthy sporting rivalry ... Episodes of violence are not rare"). Further down, it's full of, often unsourced, high praise—"historic justice", "sublime", "best ... in the world" ("considered by some", of course), "dazzled", "great", "outstanding". I don't doubt you've done a lot of good work on the article, and perhaps soccer aficionados (I'm keeping in style with the article) will even like the prose, but it is not what I would expect of a neutral, disinterested encyclopedia. Ucucha 18:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot of the grammar has been fixed and the dead links are gone. But the rest is completely sourced. Of course, you must know Spanish to read the links. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, at least in part: the piece that labels Osvaldo Zubeldía a "great coach" does not have a source. But even when the sources do use some of the labels the article gives, that does not mean Wikipedia may do the same; this is an encyclopedia, not a sports review, and the appropriate styles for the two are not the same. Ucucha 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does now...four to be exact. The man is a legend in South America and, most notably, in Argentina. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FN (I fixed the footnote placement), and WP:MSH remove all of the "A" and "The" from the section headings unless the heading is a proper noun). Also, please put spaces after the language icons-- they are running into the text. I can find no indication that futbolonline.com (the most cited source in the article) is a reliable source; if this FAC is still here next week, I'll check the rest of the Spanish-language sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IN fact, there are numerous non-reliable sources as well as many MOS errors; this FAC should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you pointed out is fixed and edited. As far as this "non-reliable" sources, I would like to see which of the references I pointed out are "non-reliable". I would like to see what is "reliable". Not everything can go through ESPN, after all. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object Peacock words everywhere eg "dream team", "legendary" "brilliant" etc. English is broken, and incorect tense; repeated instances of things "XY will beat Z the following year" type stuff instead of past tense or "XY would go on to beat Z the following year". Books cited with no pages anywhere YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some of the wording and eliminated what can be ommited. But people such as René Higuita, Ever Hugo Almeida, Pelé, Zico, Carlos Bianchi, Telê Santana and more, are widely considered legendary and iconic figures in the competition. I don't throw those phrases around without strong merit. As far as the "XY would go on to beat Z the following year" thing, I only used that, and anything similar, once, buddy. I don't know about you but that is far from being repetitive. As far as the books not quoting pages, let me tell you that the books I put up as reference makes numerous mentions of Estudiantes being a "small" club in Argentina. As a matter of fact, one of those books dedicates itself to talk about it. I have put page numbers wherever suited and necessary. Jamen Somasu (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I needn't say more. This article will be put in its place when the next archiving round occurs YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are talking about is unsupported attributions which is not the case here. I have supported everything I have mentioned. Look, don't take it the wrong way. Perhaps football, or soccer if you want to call it that, is not your most popular thing. If you want, you can step down from this FAN. I simply think you don't know enough about the subject at hand (don't worry...you are not the only one).

Who are these attributed to? Supposing that I know nothing about football and don't like it, which isnt' the case, you don't need to know anything to realise that the prose is nowhere close to meeting 1a YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because when I see crap like this get promoted with, which I used as a base to this article, it just make me start thinking of several things.

Maybe you should WP:FAR it then. A large % of articles from the old days, while nominally being FAs, don't meet the criteria and aren't even GA-quality. But claiming that there are undeserving FAs with such status, won't get you anywhere YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no offense. Jamen Somasu (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Agree with the concerns that have already been raised, and I don't believe this is ready to be here yet. Just seeing a sentence like this confirms in my mind that the prose needs work on both quality and neutrality: "It proved to be historic justice for many (even today) due to Penarol's great contributions to the creation of the tournament, but the Copa Libertadores did not receive international projection until its third edition, which was swept through the sublime football of a Santos team led by Pele, considered by some the best club team in the world of all times." Work is needed throughout, and there is too much to do during the course of an FAC. I'd suggest taking this to peer review. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because I have a link right next to that sentence backing it up and it is non other than Jose Carluccio, a highly respected football historian in the South American continent. Regardless, you can go on google and seach ""justicia histórica" (historic justice), "Peñarol" and 1960" at once. This is very well known in South America: I bet my left testicle that most fans believe Peñarol's victory in 1960 was historic justice due to their contributions in bringing the Cup to life. And it is a fact, not merely opinion (which I gave reference to) that the tournament didn't get much attention, even among the participating leagues, until the Santos of Pele beat the crap out of everyone in 1962. After that, everyone took it seriously.

As I have said before, the very viability of this nomination is suffering not so much from the article itself, but because there is very little interest in the subject at hand. That is the main reason I took it off the GA nomination page: it was there for two months picking up dust. As a test, I put a somewhat related article for GA nomination as well (one I knew had no chance of being considered a GA) and it was picked and denied GA status in less than a week. I don't blame you: it is a non-English subject. That means that most of the references are coming from a different language, people you have never heard of, and sites that you had no idea existed.

All I am asking is to have one person that is remotely interested in the sport, never mind the subject. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating sourced POV with bald fact YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Per YellowMonkey and Giants. Aaroncrick ^TALK 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.