Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FIFA World Cup

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FIFA World Cup[edit]

This is the second nomination of this article. The first nomination may be found here.

FIFA World Cup has been worked on by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Praise for the article:

Improvements made since last FA nomination:

  • Copyediting (Oldelpaso)
  • Historical research to improve depth of article.
  • Various other improvements during the previous FA nomination, as outlined on its respective page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • CommentSupport It is a LOT better then it was, but it still has a little ways to go IMHO. For starters I think there's a bit too much trivia in here, including tables lists and so forth. Also, there are many short paragraphs, plus for some reason the category name is still called "Football world cup" (for the record, I was the admin who made the move to FIFA as part of WP:RM). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of changing Category:Football World Cup to Category:FIFA World Cup. I am currently unable to finish at the moment, but this will be done tonight. As for short paragraphs and tables/lists ("trivia"), this should be cleaned up within the next few days. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would expand the history section; it does rather seem to gloss over fairly large portions (I assume this is because the article is getting near the 32k limit?). There is A LOT more could go in. Prose could be touched up in places, particularly the opening paras; some statements need to be cited, especially direct quotes (I've tagged my suggestions in the article, with some comments); 'Growth' para seems to jump around in time from WWII to WWI which is a bit jarring (or is it just me?); 'Trophy' section inexplicably omits to mention football's greatest hero, Pickles the dog. I think the tables are fine, but the presence of so many does rather disrupt the flow of the article, and make it less pleasant to read. However, it is not designed to be an elegant piece of prose; the tables should stay IMHO (for the most part). Only a few minor bits jump out, many of these may be because of space limitations, apart from that a great article and an obvious (= essential) choice for the main page on the opening day. Badgerpatrol 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's a description of Pickles' feat in Football World Cup Trophy. Do you mean that it must be mentioned in the main article? Conscious 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was slightly tongue-in-cheek, to be fair... Much of what might go into the 'History' section is already mirrored in the individual WC articles, but it somehow reads as a bit choppy; paras are too short, I think (possibly because content has been reomved to go into the other articles?). Badgerpatrol 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All citations have been found. Conscious 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Opening paras are still not perfect. This is easily fixed however. Badgerpatrol 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near support. Well done, well organized, easy to understand. For the sake of readers on the left side of the planet, I'd say "international football (soccer) on first reference and also explain that a "knockout stage" means single elimination. I would also put group stage and knockout stage in italics or bold, since they're "vocabulary words" to be defined later in the paragraph. Finally, the following sentence is confusing to me: "The only previous winner to have lost on home ground is Brazil, who lost the deciding match (known as Maracanazo) when they hosted the 1950 tournament." Does that mean that all hosts to date have either lost before the final game or gone undefeated? -- Mwalcoff 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, fixed, and fixed. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Support. -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While, as my comments during the first nom reflect, I still think a longer history section or daughter article could be written, it's fine for what we've got now. I would only ask that, in the "Successful national teams" section, the "See also link not be duplicated in the first sentence. Daniel Case 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a daughter article History of the FIFA World Cup, which I intend to expand significantly. Oldelpaso 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is an excellent article. Carioca 21:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I'm not sure how much information is available but the "Selection of Hosts" section has only one sentence for every WC between 1930 and 1998, and then almost a paragraph each for 2002, 2006 and 2010-2018. I'd like to see more info on how the host is actually selected (submission process, shortlisting, voting, ???) and then maybe also a subsection on controversies, of which I'm sure there have been more than just the hoax bribe for 2006. I'm willing to help out with this, just didn't think it should be featured until there is a bit more info in this section. Thanks AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried an expansion of this, though little information appears available about the actual decision process of earlier world cups, which appear to have been taken at a closed meeting. Robdurbar 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great soccer article. And can be an Main Page FA near June. igordebraga ≠ 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very good article, and important since the World Cup is coming up soon. Ronline ✉ 11:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=1046410114"