Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lionel Messi/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 Ian Rose 07:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Lionel Messi[edit]

Nominator(s): Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Lionel Messi an argentine football player. The article is already a good article and is regularly updated. I am a regular reader of this article and i feel happy with its progress. It is exact and all the data are updated as soon as possible. The records that he holds or if any of his records are broken everything is updated. Even all his goals are updated as he progresses in his career.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There has been no significant improvement to this article since it was promoted to GA status. It needs a bit of a rewrite to get the prose up to FA standard, in my opinion. – Pee Jay 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case please tell me about the sections that need a rewrite. I can work on that.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comments - taking a look now. Prose looks alright at first glance....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

until it was again broken by Bojan Krkić in 2007, scoring from a Messi assist - the "it" here doesn't agree with the subject of the previous segment (which was Messi) - would change to "the record"

Messi also proved the "new Maradona" tag was not all hype - Maradona comparison not mentioned before here, so text sounds weird in assuming our famliarity with it.

On 27 February, Messi played in his 100th official match for Barcelona against Valencia CF - this sentence just sits there on its own - needs to be incorporated into a paragraph

The suggested changes have been made you can have a look at them if you wantAbhinav0908 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better - ~~agree below about duplicate links (I saw quite a few), which need to be removed.~~ Scanned briefly but didn't see dates mentioned below - still check to ensure they all conform in format.

FC Barcelona needs to be linked at first instance.

Oppose The article is fairly comprehensive, but nowhere near FA standard. It suffers from WP:WEIGHT issues in certain seasons, can spot WP:LINKROT and many cases of WP:OVERLINK → Guardiola three times for one. The lead does not do a good job of summarising his career. Nothing mentioned about his early life and how he joined Barcelona. It's general one sentence → "In March 2012, Messi made...", yet specific in another "On 23 March 2014," → needs to be consistent. Just because the records and statistics are updated doesn't mean it meets the criteria. Prose must be tightened in some areas. Best for you to withdraw this, get the article checked here, before making another nom. 90.199.41.160 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 90.199.41.160. Too much overlink. It could be a FA, but not now. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 08:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The overlink problem regarding guardiola is addressed and i will address other overlink problems as soon as possible.Abhinav0908 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I solved a lot of overlinking problem today. The rest will be solved as soon as possible.Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Barcelona is linked now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the overlinks i saw in the article, review it again and comment your views on the article.Abhinav0908 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KyleRGiggs Casliber PeeJay2K3

Closing comment -- While I don't think all the opposing comments are clearly actionable, I can't see this reaching consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. From my own quick scan I see several statements in the prose section and several items in the award lists that are uncited, and many very short paragraphs and subsections that really should be merged to avoid choppiness in presentation. I suggest that after working on these issues and any others above still outstanding that the article go through a Peer Review before returning to FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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