Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive4

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 promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [1].

---

Peru national football team

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Peru national football team, a presently mediocre sports team with an illustrious history. Several past (although relatively recent) FAC reviews ended in no consensus to promote not due to oppose votes, but rather due to lack of support votes (despite the plentiful commentary). This sports article is the best national football team model and deserves to be considered part of Wikipedia's featured content. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further notes

1. Image review conducted by Nikkimaria in archive 3. No new images have been added since then.
2. Major improvement suggestions last addressed in archive 2. No new major changes have been made since then.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional note

1. Actually, after analyzing the article and its derived works, I have done a series of major improvements to the article this year (2014), including citation improvements, image re-arrangements, and content improvements. If the FA reviewers could please double-check the citations, it would be most appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: MarshalN20. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am not particularly knowledgeable about football, especially in South America, but I feel this nomination has waited long enough, so I am providing a few general comments which I hope will kickstart a more detailed review.

• Opening words: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football competition". Isn't this rather a statement of the obvious?
• In my view there is two much use of acronyms in he first paragraph. We have FPF, which you explain properly, then FIFA and CONMEBOL, which require readers to link to other articles. I think you might get away with FIFA, but I suggest "South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)"
• "Its traditional rival is Chile, but there is also a prominent rivalry with Ecuador". Awkward repetition, and "prominent" is probably not the best choice of adjective here. I would simplify to something like: "There are longstanding rivalries with Cile and with Ecuador"
• "...because government sport authorities intervened in FPF affairs under allegations of corruption." Needs to be expressed more clearly, e.g. "while allegations of PFP corruption were investigated by the Peruvian governemnt's sporting authorities.
• In the History section, what is meant by "food ways"? In general there is too much reliance in this section on direct quotations for fairly unremarkable expressions, for which a brief paraphrase would be more appropriate. For example, "British advisors, engineers, and other technicians (including sailors)" could easily be "British civilian workers and visiting sailors".
• "ending last in both the 1990 and 1994 World Cup qualifiers" – "finishing last"?
• A "hiatus" does not "experience" a recovery, full or slight. A hiatus (a break in continuity) may be followed by a recovery.
• "...despite achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América and attaining its highest FIFA position in July 2013, Peru did not qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup". The word "despite" suggests that Perus 3rd place in the Copa America, and its FIFA ranking, were contributory factors in its World Cup qualification. They were not - the World Cup qualifying competition is a separate affair. The sentence could read: "Peru achieved third place at the 2011 Copa América, and reached its highest-ever FIFA position (19th) in July 2013. However, it failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup."

I only have time for a few brief further observations:

• Players": what you describe as the "current squad" was evidently put together for a single friendly match. Why was this match particularly notable, to separate these players out from the others? A squad chosen for one match does not normally become the "national squad".
• You don't need dates of birth and ages - the ages will soon be out of date anyway.
• "Recent callups" table: "in the last 12 months" needs some actual date referencing, since "the last twelve months" is a constantly shifting time span
• What is the logic for the ordering of the players' names in this section?

That's all I have time for. My last observation is that the prose would benefit from a full copyedit by an editor who has considerable experience of writing in good quality English. I don't think previous copyeditors have done a particularly good job – the prose is decidedly flaky for a fifth-time nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian, thank you very much for the review.

I agree that there are several redundant phrases and concepts in the article, but these are requirements from the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. That link should answer your last few questions about the "current squad" and "the last 12 months". Also, the Scotland national football team article (the current only FA national football team) should further help out.

Some additional responses:

• The logic of the players' ordering (in the "Recent callups") is based on the last match they played with the national team.
• The article has been copy-edited various times (formally and informally), but its prose can certainly be improved by reviewers. If you have some additional time available, further prose improvement suggestions are by all means welcome.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Curly Turkey

You'll have to search far and wide for someone who knows littler about footbal than myself, so feel free to laff at any naïvetés I may list here. I have been to Peru, though---but not Lima (my wife's Japanese, and the atmosphere was a little unfriendly for Japanese people when we were there in 2001). Feel free to disagree with any comment of mine, some of which are merely my preferences and wouldn't impact FAC eligibility. "football became "a popular sport promoted by bosses for the cohesion of their workers and to a daily practice on empty lots in popular urban barrios" ": quotations should have inline attribution---but is there some reason this can't be reworded? Must it be a quote? I wonder about some of the other quotes as well...not that I can pinpoint anything wrong with it, but there are a lot of them, and few or any of them seem like really "quotable" quotes. " to the repression taken against "social, sporting and political organization among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s": is there something good to link to here? "from the left shoulder to the right hip, in the front, and vice-versa, in the back": I might drop the first and third commas "was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" (the highest certification granted to artificial pitches) stadiums": the parenthesis seems awkward to me reading aloud. How about something like "was one of Peru's four stadiums to be awarded "FIFA Star II", the highest certification granted to artificial pitches"? "now covered by thousands": how about an "as of"? "desert-like coastal region"; "was markedly English, played by members of the expatriate community and the Anglophile elite on grass pitches in clubs that were physically separated from the daily reality of Lima"; "a form of popular culture with autonomous characteristics of organization and practice"; "fervor, enthusiasm, and passion"; etc: attribution, or paraphrase? "¡Arriba Perú!": would a translation (even in an endnote) be out of line? "Supporters of Peru are infamously known for the Estadio Nacional disaster, considered as one of the most terrible in football history,[68] which occurred on May 24, 1964, during a 1964 Summer Olympics qualifying match between the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina.": I might split this into two sentences "Peru's only hat-trick scorer": is "hat trick" worth a link? "a pure goal scorer who would take on entire defenses", etc: attribution, or paraphrase? " including friendlies": "friendlies" worth a link? (I don't know what it means) ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Curly. The repression against social organizations took place during the government of Manuel Odria. The Spanish WP has an article on it ([2]). Most readers don't know the meaning of "hat-trick". I don't know how to properly translate the sports chant. All other points should be addressed. I hope your visit to Peru was enjoyable. The only noteworthy thing about Lima, aside from the museums, is the food. The city is not much different from other major urban centers in the Western Hemisphere, except perhaps the driving experience is the worst of all. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 03:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I really enjoyed the few days I spent in Cusco, especially (obviously) Machu Picchu (and the 30¢ slices of lemon meringue pie I found)! A further nitpick: I didn't mean you should add "as of" to "now"—I meant that "now" will very quickly become "not now", so it would be best to have an "as of 2013" or whatever, or to avoid mentioning a time at all (the date of the renovation should be sufficient). Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Good, I'm glad you had a good time in Cusco. I removed the "as of now" part. I agree that it is best to avoid mentioning time. Thank you.--MarshalN20Talk 15:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Curly Turkey: Dear friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see below for more information). At this time, would you oppose or support the nomination?--MarshalN20 Talk 15:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry it took me a while to come back. There are a couple of refs listed that you haven't cited anywhere: Glanville, Brian (2010). The Story of the World Cup; and Lennox, Doug (2009). Now You Know Soccer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Curly. I moved the cited text to Peru at the FIFA World Cup. I should have also taken out those books from the references. It should now be fixed.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian

Support—I have reviewed this article at great length over the past fortnight (see below) and have provided a thorough copy-edit. After a lot of progress I feel the article now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support its promotion. Well done MarshalN20; I hope this gets the support it needs this time. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

;Lead and infobox I would restructure the first two sentences thus: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football. Managed by the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF), it is one of the 10 members of FIFA's South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)." (prose issues, and it competes against teams from all around the world when it qualifies for the World Cup finals.) "The Peruvian team's performance has been inconsistent, although it enjoyed successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s." Use of "although" is inappropriate, as the following statement that certain periods were considered successful itself implies that other periods were less so. I would suggest removing "although", putting a semicolon here and clarifying that it enjoyed its most successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s. Perhaps mention Lima is the capital of Peru (a lot of people wouldn't know) Clarify that what they have qualified for four times are technically the World Cup final tournaments, not the World Cup tournaments themselves Since they've only been to the Olympics once perhaps simpler just to say when it was: "and participated in the Olympic football tournament in 1936." "The classic uniform colors" Perhaps "Peru's classic uniform colors" "which is why the Peruvian team is commonly known as" perhaps "which gives rise to the Peruvian team's common Spanish nickname" "Early in its history" Clarify we mean early in the team's history and not that of Peru the country Teodoro Fernández, Juan Valdivieso, and Alejandro Villanueva—are these players? back to continue later —Cliftonian (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC) It may be an understatement to state that I loved all the improvement recommendations. I look forward to the rest of the review. Thank you.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC) It's really no problem, I'm glad you like the suggestions so much. I'm really enjoying helping out with this so thank you! =) —Cliftonian (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Lead and infobox, continued I copyedited some of the new additions, I hope you don't mind "Early in its history, Peru's national team participated in the inaugural FIFA World Cup tournament"—Why not just "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in 1930"? "brought it to world recognition" perhaps "brought it worldwide recognition" "Peru's 1982 World Cup participation was its last to date, and it has not since won a major tournament or qualified for the World Cup" How about "Peru last reached the World Cup finals in 1982; it has since failed to qualify, and has not won any major tournament." "In late 2008, the team was temporarily suspended from international participation by FIFA while allegations of FPF corruption were investigated by the Peruvian government's sporting authorities." How about "FIFA temporarily suspended the team from international competition in late 2008 while Peruvian government investigated allegations of corruption within the FPF." "Peru appointed Uruguayan Sergio Markarián as its head coach in 2010 and, after achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América, was unable to qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup." Perhaps mention the team is presently without a coach and that Sergio Markarián, from Uruguay, was the last incumbent? We don't need to mention that Peru didn't get to the 2014 World Cup again as we have already said they didn't get into a World Cup since 1982, so leave that out. I would keep that they came third in the 2011 Copa América; perhaps mention this is the best they've done since 1983 (so perhaps things are on the up! ;)) Infobox looks generally okay to me; I'd just put an inline citation on Palacios' 128 caps and on Pizarro being captain History I'd perhaps change the first use of football to "Assocation football"→"Association football was introduced to Peru ..." I don't know, I just think it makes it sound nice, I'll leave this one to your personal discretion "in the nineteenth century" I think we prefer "in the 19th century" in MOS? I may be wrong why don't you wikilink British immigrants to British Peruvian? you don't need to wikilink England (everybody knows what England is) Again, perhaps make clear that Lima is the capital city. Suggested reword: "As early as 1859, members of the British community in the capital Lima founded the Lima Cricket Club, a sports club dedicated to cricket, rugby, and football." (you don't need "the practice of", all it adds is extra words) "of the War of the Pacific (1879–1883)"→I'd make this "of the War of the Pacific against Chile (1879–1883)." "After the war, Peru's coastal society embraced modern cultural practices for leisure, the arts, and cuisine. In Lima, football became a popular daily activity in urban barrios. City workers were also encouraged to practice the sport by bosses who wanted to improve their laborer's solidarity and productivity." Perhaps "After the war, coastal society in Peru embraced modern innovations such as football, which became a popular daily activity in Lima barrios. Urban bosses encouraged their workers to take up the sport, hoping that it would breed solidarity and improved productivity." "with local workers" why not just "with locals" "Due to these factors, including the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (thanks to the foundation of Alianza Lima in 1901), Peru formed the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region." Perhaps "These factors, coupled with the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (where the Alianza Lima club was formed in 1901), led to Peru developing the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region. all for now, will continue tomorrow —Cliftonian (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC) History, continued "Peruvian Football League tournament" you don't need tournament Perhaps rephrase this sentence as: "The Peruvian Football League was formed in 1912 and held each year until it broke up in 1921 amid disputes between the member clubs." "Consequently, the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF)[C] was created in the following year and, in 1926, assumed the management of the Peruvian Football League." Try "The Peruvian Football Federation (FPF) was created the following year and, in 1926, it reorganised the annual league competition." "The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, but due to financial problems it only formed a national football team in 1927,[19] which debuted in that year's South American Championship.[12]" Try "The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, and formed a national team in 1927—the delay was due to financial issues. The team debuted in the 1927 South American Championship, which the FPF hosted at the Estadio Nacional in Lima." Perhaps mention here that Peru's first win was a 3–2 victory over Bolivia in their second international game? "During the 1930s, Peruvian football lived its first golden era." You should really say instead that this has been called a golden era. "The 1930s have been called Peruvian football's first golden era." Or something like that. Say what Rodillo Negro means in English ("black roller") wikilink Alejandro Villanueva, Juan Valdivieso, and Teodoro Fernández, and mention that these are players. Perhaps say what positions they respectively played. What exactly made them "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"? "After a fair performance"—"a fair performance" seems terribly vague and, er, they played two games and lost them both. Perhaps just say they took part in the inaugural World Cup in Uruguay in 1930 (I think it's worth mentioning it was in Uruguay, another South American country). Why were poor organisations in Peru repressed during the 1940s and 1950s? "generally reached the middle standings" perhaps "generally performed creditably" "In this period, Peru generally reached the middle standings at South American Championships and barely missed the Sweden 1958 World Cup, after being defeated by Brazil (which went on to win the competition)" Perhaps "Peru generally performed creditably at the South American Championships during this period, and narrowly missed qualification for the 1958 World Cup finals in Sweden, losing over two legs to eventual champions Brazil." "A series of victories in the late 1960s, culminating in the qualification for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, brought Peru to another golden era." Try "A series of successes during the late 1960s, culminating for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, ushered in a second golden period for Peruvian football." "Peru reached the quarterfinals, where it was knocked out by eventual winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."→"Peru reached the quarter-finals in 1970, losing to the tournament winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy." "while in Spain 1982" should be "and in Spain 1982" "the first stage" should be "the first group stage" (to concisely make clear there were two group stages that year) "Peru's early elimination" should be "Peru's early elimination in 1982" (more clear) "Following its failed qualification" should be "Following its failure to qualify for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico" "as "The Colts" (Spanish: Los Potrillos)" should be "as Los Potrillos ("The Colts")" (I think it is clear from context this is Spanish) "leaving among the dead several national team players (including rising sensation Luis Escobar and goalkeeper José González Ganoza) and coach Marcos Calderón." put a full stop before this and make this into a new sentence. "All aboard were killed except the pilot. Among the dead were the national team coach Marcos Calderón and several Peruvian international players, including Luis Escobar, widely tipped as a future star forward, and goalkeeper José González Ganoza." "South Korea/Japan 2002 and Germany 2006 tournaments" make clear these are World Cup tournaments wikilink goal difference say the Kirin Cup is in Japan briefly explain that Peru was invited to the Gold Cup in 2000 as a guest team Why was a corrupt official blamed for the players' perceived poor performance? "considered his re-election illegal" perhaps "declared his re-election illegal" In the final sentence in this section move the "however" from the start of the sentence to the end Make clear in the image caption that the players are named from left to right (I presume they are). Also maybe move the image down to the 1970s paragraph and put it on the right (if it overlaps slightly into the section on the team's kit this is no great bother as it nicely displays the team's kit too) Back later to continue —Cliftonian (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Uniform How about "Colours" or "kit"? These are terms more commonly used in football than "uniform". I'd go for "colours" myself. When we say Peru's national colors are red and white, we mean the country in a non-sporting sense, right? If so, I'd make this clearer. Put something like "The Peru football team plays in red and white, the country's national colors." Why not mention the first kit had black socks? "on the front", not "in the front"; same "on the back" They haven't used the exact same design since 1936, have they? Perhaps make clear that the basic sash design dates back to 1936, but that it has been slightly altered periodically during that time. I think this section would benefit from a slight reorganisation; I think it might work better if you discuss each design directly when it is introduced, as opposed to the present format where you introduce the four designs, then go back and discuss each of them. "claiming that" seems odd wording; all Turpin said was that he thought it was the nicest kit, not that it unambiguously was. I'd replace this with "saying that". "eight separate companies"→"separate" is not needed, "eight companies" means the same thing Is arkivperu.com a reliable source? Looks like a blog to me. Likewise Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora (blogspot). Kit pictures are very nicely laid out, well done Back for more later —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the improvements. A few responses: Yes, Arkivperu & Pulgar-Vidal are both reliable sources. What makes them so, if I may ask? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Pulgar-Vidal is a notable sports historian and a professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (see [3]). ArkivPeru is an archive. It's not a traditional RS, but it is reliable for the non-controversial information it adds (and which no other source presents).--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, these both seem reasonable to me, but keep in mind these sources might get questioned by others—if you find something more concrete I would recommend adding them. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Goldblatt does not explain why sports organizations were repressed. Do any other sources? Do you have a vague idea why they might have been? What kind of government was Peru under in those days? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I haven't found another source that mentions sports organizations in Peru during this period. Based on personal knowledge, I would guess the repression is related to the Manuel A. Odría administration. However, Odría was also a populist, and prior Peruvian administrators (such as that of Manuel Prado) were not supportive of organizations that united the poor or industrial workers (which is partially why APRA became an important political force). The convoluted nature of Peruvian politics may also explain why Goldblatt decided to avoid elaborating on the subject.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, I think I understand. I'm sorry I am so ignorant of matters Peruvian! Perhaps just add a few words to make clear it was the government that was repressing the organisations? ("He attributed this sudden decline to Peruvian authorities' repression of "social, sporting and political organizations among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s." or something like that should do). —Cliftonian (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) The Rodillo Negro did not participate in the 1930 World Cup. I attempted to make the sentence a "before and after" contrast, but (in retrospect) it does not seem to have been expressed properly. Why don't you just move the fragment about playing in the 1930 World Cup to the beginning of the paragraph, before you mention the Rodillo Negro? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I moved it to the prior paragraph. Do you think it maintains a proper flow?--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) That looks great; well done! This is a great improvement. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I suggest you go back through the previous comments again as some of them don't seem to have been addressed. For example, what exactly made Villanueva, Valdivieso, and Fernández "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"? Does the source say? Only a word or two of explanation is required to make this part clear for the reader. I'll continue the review later. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, I apologize for the delay. Everything up to "Colours" should be ready.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for being so patient and polite with me, as I say above I am rather ignorant of both Peru the country and its football team (which is a large factor in what makes reviewing this interesting)—all I knew before was the wonderful red sash kit! I will go back and copy-edit a little in the history section before continuing the review, I hope you don't mind. Well done so far, this is shaping up nicely. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I will be back late tomorrow (3 February) to continue this review. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Your changes to the colors section look great, well done! I have just copy-edited the prose a little bit. Right, on with the review. Stadium "The Estadio Nacional is a 45,000-spectator stadium located in Lima that acts as the traditional home of the Peruvian team and the national stadium of Peru." This sentence seems kind of backwards to me. I would put :The traditional home of the Peruvian team is the country's national stadium, the Estadio Nacional in Lima, which houses 45,000 spectators." Or something like that. Was the first national stadium also called the Estadio Nacional? Why not say this is the third Estadio Nacional, the result of a renovation process under Alan Garcia that was completed in 2011, and that the original was a wooden structure ... etc "Peru's centenary of independence" should be "the centenary of Peru's independence" You don't need to wikilink Spain, everybody knows what Spain is "regime" is a somewhat loaded word in English, try "government" or even just putting "Under General Manuel Odría, the stadium ..."; this still makes sense and is more concise "reconstructed, expanded, and officially re-inaugurated" expanded seems superfluous here; how could it be expanded if it was reconstructed at the same time? try "rebuilt with a larger capacity, and officially re-inaugurated" I'd move the sentence about this being the present stadium up (see comment above) "A unique feature" all features are unique; I'd replace this word "named in honor of the main advocate of the stadium's first renovation" who was he? A politician? a civil servant? a sports coach? "overtime" should be "over time" ("overtime" as one word is a noun equivalent to "injury time" in US English) "The arena was also the only national stadium in CONMEBOL to have artificial turf, installed to improve its aesthetic appeal for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship, and was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" stadia, the highest certification granted to artificial pitches." You should rearrange this to make clear that stadium had artificial turf from 2005, but doesn't now (I know you say this in the next paragraph but this is quite jarring) "located in" You don't need "located"; just saying "in" means the same thing Supporters "Amid the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" try "During the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" ("amid" would mean during that period, but not actually during those games) "During the 19th century, football in Peru was not only exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and former expatriates, but it was also secluded from the rest of the city." Try "During the 19th century, football in Peru was largely exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and expatriates, and secluded from the rest of the city." "as the practice of the sport" why not just "as the sport" "of a wider popular culture" you don't need "a" "In the 21st century, football is the most popular sport in Peru" Perhaps "Football is today the most popular sport in Peru." I would recommend putting this at the start of this section "Peruvian fans commonly encourage the national squad with the popular sports chant ¡Arriba Perú!" How about "Peru fans often encourage the national team with cries of ¡Arriba Perú! ("Come on Peru!")." "it became "a symbol of national culture" for Peru" try "it became a symbol of [Peruvian] national culture." "Peru Campeón, a polca criolla" translate these Spanish terms "qualification to the Mexico 1970 World Cup" should be "qualification for" "considered as one of the most terrible in football history" perhaps "which is often cited as one of the worst tragedies in football history" "the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina" maybe "Peru's under-20 team and its counterpart from Argentina" "goal from Peru, which would have tied the score, alleging "rough play" from the Peruvians" maybe "Peruvian goal, a would-be equalizer, alleging rough Peruvian play." "jumped into the field" maybe "invaded the pitch" "on the pitch" is not necessary; "thrown from the stands" is enough "Police responded by throwing tear gas into the crowd, causing a stampede that was worsened by the stadium's locked gates. The death toll amounted to 315 spectators and more than 500 were injured in the chaos." Try "Police threw tear gas into the crowd, which caused a stampede; trying to escape, fans were crushed against the stadium's locked gates. A total of 315 people were killed in the chaos, with more than 500 others injured." Rivalries "Peru maintains prominent football rivalries with Chile and Ecuador. They have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile.[72][73] The first time Peru faced both its rivals in an official tournament was during the 1939 South American Championship held in Lima; Peru won both matches.[74] In the FIFA World Cup, Peru's first confrontation against both rivals happened during the Argentina 1978 World Cup qualifiers, in which Peru directly eliminated Ecuador and Chile after defeating them in Lima and securing away draws.[72][73]" Perhaps: "The Peru football team maintains prominent rivalries with its counterparts from neighbouring Chile and Ecuador.[72][73] The Peruvians have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile. Both of these rivalries date back to the 1939 South American Championship in Lima, when Peru first faced Ecuador and Chile in an official tournament; Peru won both games.[74] Peru's first FIFA World Cup matches against its two rivals were played during qualifying for the Argentina 1978 World Cup; Peru defeated both Ecuador and Chile over two legs, directly eliminating them both.[72][73]" "considers it to be" perhaps "ranks it" "Chile has" perhaps "the Chilean team has" "Both nations further dispute the origin of the football move known as the bicycle kick, with Peruvians naming it chalaca and Chileans calling it chilena." Perhaps "both nations furthermore claim to have invented the bicycle kick; Peruvians call it the chalaca, and it is the chilena in Chile." "prevent both sides from facing each other" perhaps "prevent a match between the two sides" Okay that's it for now; more later or tomorrow. Hope this helps —Cliftonian (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Everything is fantastic. To my mind comes that quote attributed to Michelangelo: "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it." I brought the stone, and you're the artist making a masterpiece out of it. [:)]--MarshalN20 Talk 14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Wow, thank you for the extremely flattering words! I'm glad you feel that way. I noticed that one of the images lower down infringed on copyright (falsely labelled as self-published, but actually from Popperfoto), so I took it out. I don't think it's a great loss anyway. Okay, on to "Competitive records". FIFA World Cup "Peru has participated in 14 World Cup qualifiers and 4 World Cup finals." Try "The Peruvian team competed at the first World Cup in 1930 as invitees, and has entered each tournament at the qualifying stage since 1958. Having qualified three times (in 1970, 1978 and 1982), it has taken part in the World Cup finals four times." "In the qualifiers, the squad has a record of 35 wins, 30 draws, and 59 losses, with 130 goals in favor and 174 against." Perhaps "Peru's all-time record in World Cup qualifying matches as of 2014 stands at 35 wins, 30 draws and 59 losses; the team has scored 130 goals and conceded 174." "In the finals, the team holds a record of 4 wins, 3 draws, and 8 losses, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against." Maybe "In the finals, the team has won four matches, drawn three and lost eight, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against." expand to "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources." "first tournament goal" why not "first World Cup goal" "Teófilo Cubillas is the team's top World Cup scorer with 10 goals in 13 games" this is including qualifiers, right? More tomorrow —Cliftonian (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC) On reflection, I don't think the large tables and templates in the "competitive records" section really belong in this article about the Peru football team in general. They are rather intrusive and detract somewhat from the prose, in my opinion. I think these would be better off in the individual articles linked to or in an article on the Peru football team's statistics. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Please pardon the delay in updating the article. I'm currently stuck with a few dull tasks at work. [:/] The achievement tables are a standard across all national football team articles. I personally agree with you that they are bulky and detract from the prose. However, this would be a long-term matter to discuss with the editors at WP:FOOTY and change the format. Hmmm. Is there a way to make it so these tables are hidden by default? This might be a good way around this—the information would be retained for those who want it (who can easily open the table), but would not be as intrusive and distracting. I think we can do this by going to the individual template pages and changing the class to "wikitable collapsible collapsed". I would recommend taking the templates with the squads for each tournament out. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) The name "Polca criolla" is the same in Spanish and English. Another common name in English is "Peruvian polka", which is the correct translation of the other common Spanish name "polca peruana". Based on GoogleBooks results, I get the impression that "polca criolla" is more common in the academic realm (perhaps because it has a more exotic tone to it). Regardless, I think either is fine. Which do you prefer? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 05:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I think we could best put it as "Peru Campeón, a polca criolla (Peruvian polka)". I hope this is okay with you? Don't worry at all about delays, I understand completely. I hope all this is helpful and that you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Good. I hope to soon create the "polca criolla" article, but I'm debating on whether to focus on that first or expand the Musica criolla article. I am now on the records section. The boxes are now collapsed. The team templates need to be in the article. I can move them to the bottom of the page. Would you prefer them to be at the bottom of the article? Bet wishes.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry it took me a couple days to get back to this. I think perhaps having them at the bottom would be best as they are a little in the way as it is, even though they are collapsed. I will copy-edit the rest of the article over the next few days and then have a final look over. I hope this is okay and that you are well. See also my note below. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I have done some copy-editing and reorganisation but have not finished yet; please give me a couple more days. Thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I'm still awestruck by the improvements. I do, nonetheless, feel nostalgic for the kit evolution pictures.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I have finished copyediting the article now, and am now concluding this part of the review. I hope all the changes I have made are to your satisfaction. I have just one more query regarding the prose and captions: "The renovated Estadio Nacional offers high-quality lighting for HD newscasts"—what does this mean? I don't understand. Apart from this I am happy enough to support so far as prose is concerned. You also need to go through and work on the reference formatting (for example, you have "CONMEBOL.com" and "FIFA.com" listed as publishers, when it should just be "CONMEBOL" and "FIFA"—the publisher is the organisation, not the name of the website). Also keep in mind what I said about sourcing; you have quite a few blogs in here and these are sure to throw up question marks. I am sorry but I still don't feel comfortable supporting this for FA status while these issues remain surrounding the references. I hope you're well and having a nice weekend. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC) All the changes are fantastic. It may just be nostalgia, but I would have liked to keep the kit evolution pictures in the "Colours" section. The "high-quality lighting..." part refers to the improved lights of the stadium, which (according to the source) make High-Definition (television) newscasts possible. All the ".com" issues should now be resolved. Certain websites, such as "Peru.com", have the ".com" as part of their official name. All of the blogs are reliable per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The only website I can agree that is borderline acceptable is "ArkivPeru", but I think it can be removed if you think the article would be better without using it. Thanks for all the improvements!--MarshalN20 Talk 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC) I removed ArkivPeru from a couple of citations, replacing one with a source from El Comercio. I left it for the citation of Peru's kit history (no other source has such a detailed account of it).--MarshalN20 Talk 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC) I think this is okay, well done. The issue I mentioned above regarding the publisher formatting still remains, though—in a lot of instances you give the web address or the work as the publisher rather than the publisher itself. El Comercio, for example, is a newspaper, right? It should go under "work", not publisher. The publisher is "Empresa Editora El Comercio". (this is also the publisher for Peru.com, Peru21.pe, Depor.pe and Laprensa.pe; these are all works). Give RSSSF in full: it is the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. Don't put "Arkivperu.com", just put "ArkivPeru". "Blogs.PUCP.edu.pe" should be replaced with the name of the institution (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru). "Jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com" should be his name: "Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora". Is Clarín a company or a publication/website? If the latter, it is a work; find the publisher. "El Universal.mx" should be "El Universal" and included as a work, not a publisher. "Libero.pe" should just be "Libero". I hope this helps and that you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Everything is good. Clarin is the work, and "Grupo Clarin" is the publisher. Thank you for teaching me to distinguish between both. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that adding the common acronym to the first full citation, such as "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)", would then permit me to solely use the acronym in subsequent citations? I just did this, but can also quickly change everything to the full name. I hope all is good with you as well. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC) I see no reason why this would not be okay (RSSSF is the more common term anyway). —Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support from John

I now support this candidate. Well done for all the improvements. --John (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from John (talk)

See my note in talk. Was there a reason this was changed from UK to US English? --John (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC) @John:. This article hasn't been "changed from UK to US English". I wrote most of the pre-FA review draft. English is not my first language, and I learned to write/speak it from a variety of individuals, including French Vietnamese, Midwestern Americans, and British Peruvians. Basing a "procedural oppose" on the language of a subpar version of the article, from nearly a decade ago ([4]), is astonishing. Moreover, my first edit on the article was in 2007 ([5]), by which time there were no mention of "colours" or "neighbours" (which are the only UK English words I could catch from the 2004 version). I hope this answers your query. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Not really. It should be kept in the original dialect per WP:RETAIN. If you didn't change it (and I accept you didn't), it should be easy enough to change it back. --John (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I would not have minded at all to write the article in UK English, as I did (with the help of UK English writing editors) in Falkland Islands, but at this point the request is excessive. In fact, I consider the following part of WP:RETAIN to apply to this case: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Two words ("colours" and "neighbours") do not establish a consistent variety. Nonetheless, if you would like to change the language from US to UK English, please feel free to go ahead and do it (and tag it accordingly on the talk page). However, please don't oppose this article's nomination based on a 2004 edition, which was little more than a stub with only two identifiable UK English words. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I'm somewhat bemused by the idea that this should not go to FA status on the basis of an ENGVAR issue from a decade ago. The only important thing for me is that one variety, either UK or US English, is used consistently throughout. I would personally prefer UK-style English just because that's what I'm more used to. One though that has just occurred to me is that using British English would be a quite nice way to subtly give a nod to the British founders of Peruvian football. What do you think? Whatever we decide, I am happy to go through and make sure the whole article conforms to one variety. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I don't have any preference over either variety. However, I am unable to conduct such a massive change at this time. If perhaps John or you could please do then change, then that would be great. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I will convert the article to BrE in a couple days (I'll be unable to until then because of real life commitments). I hope this settles this issue. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC) The article is now in British English. I hope this is okay with everybody. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Cliftonian. @John:, everything good?--MarshalN20Talk 23:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I appreciate you have tried to fix this. I cannot support though because the prose is still not at the requisite level. "Furthermore" and "however" are danger flags of bad writing to me, and I see we still have "centered" among the UK spellings. I think a good copy-edit could take this to the standard but it is not there yet. --John (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry about this. I will endeavour to rectify this when I copyedit this article in a few days. I hope you're well and having a pleasant week. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I've finished copyediting now; what do you think now? Thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC) @John: Friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see above for more information). Everything you mentioned was addressed (UK English and good copy-edit). Only two "however" are in the article, and these are appropriately used in the history section. Given these major changes, would you keep the oppose or change to support the nomination? Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC) It looks a lot better, nice work. Can you live without the howevers? --John (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC) John, yes, thank you very much for the improvements.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Image Review by Wizardman

• Image review: I see an img review was done in the last FAC, but doesn't hurt to double-check. 10 images in all, first one is a logo that passes copyleft status due to its simplicity. Rest of the images check out ok except for the ones noted. First, File:Perurumania1930.JPG is tagged as PD for Chile, but it shows a Peru-Romania match. I'm sure it is PD, but is that the right tag? If Los Sports, the source, is Chilean, perhaps make that clear. If it is based in Peru, then change to the Peru PD tag you use elsewhere. Also, I'd like to see File:Inside Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg's description fleshed out due to how vague it is, though it is not a requirement. Wizardman 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Wizardman. Yes, it seems Los Sports was a Chilean magazine published during the 1930s (there's a substantial article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia). The Peru-Romania match was surprisingly violent, so that may be the reason it got coverage in Chile. Although I imagine the World Cup was also the only notable sporting event that took place in South America at that time.

I improved the description of the Estadio Nacional image, but I really don't know what was going on the day it was taken.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and linked Los Sports on the image, since I didn't realize we had an article on it (one sentence, but it exists). Everything else looks good now img-wise. Wizardman 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

There are a bunch of issues I noticed and I will try to list them as I go through:

Intro

• "he 1930s and 1970s" there should be another the after and
• " and is without a manager..." there is something weird about this whole sentence
• second para and on: I don't really like how the intro is organized; please try to talk about each set a competitions in an order: start with WC record - by taking 2 or 3 sentences; then talk about the copa america; then other stuff such as the olympics
• have 3rd para talk about say famous people and managers
• then perhaps talk about rivalries, jersey, etc
• last intro para talk about recent developments and current trends in performances

History

• I don't really like how this section is and I think you should have 3 subsections: 1) early beginnings and first world cups (1930s); after Rodillo Negro up to 1982; 3) modern/recent era
• when was the first friendly and first official international game played?
• "Starting with Ciclista Lima in 1926, Peruvian clubs toured Latin America." needs a citation
• "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in Uruguay in 1930" move to next para
• " the national team's underperformance" during what period?
• " reached its highest-ever position in the FIFA world rankings" I think you need to specify here since when are the rankings recorded/calculated
• "It failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup finals, nonetheless" please state the place. You should clearly state the performances for whenever you say it failed to qualify (i.e. was it #9 or #4?)

After history

• "the country's national colours" are they national colors, or just flag's colors?
• " it was most recently renovated i" plural?
• the stadium section is a bit longer than it needs to be; who cares about vip boxes and other aluminium crap?
• when was the last time a game was played at a different stadium?
• supporters section could probably benefit from an image (of supporters painted/dressed in whatever color(s))

rivalries

• please give some statistics of W/D/L games

Records

• "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources" should probably be moved in the history part
• "eru came top of their group in the first round, eliminating Chile and Bolivia, and in the semifinals drew with Brazil over two legs, winning 3–1 in Brazil but losing 2–0 at home. Peru were declared winners by drawing of lots. In the two-legged final between Colombia and Peru, both teams won their respective home games (1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima), forcing a play-off in Caracaswhich Peru won 1–0" should be summarized in the history section
• perhaps mention here that only the big three won the cup more than twice
• the bottom two para in the olympic section are TMI

Players

• please decrease the font size to something like 90% and auto-hide the recent callumps stuff
• add a (hidden) table for the notable players section with caps and goals

Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Nergaal. I addressed the most important that I could easily fix at the moment. Some comments:

• The Ciclista Lima etc. citation (#22) covers two sentences.
• I'm very limited when it comes to tables & other such Wiki-gadgets. Plus, I remember the WP:FOOTIE members did not want for the player tables to be altered from the current consensus (all football articles have the same format for the player tables).
• I'd prefer for the history section to have no subsections.

Ian plans to close this FAC on either Friday or Saturday. Hopefully it will pass so that this FAC review matter is not again repeated for a fifth time. We can discuss the other suggestions you're making afterwards. Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose since after spot-checking some pf my comments they didn't appear to have been addressed yet. Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal, most of your suggestions are merely personal preferences over non-major matters (including points that challenge the established consensus at WP:FOOTY). I have addressed those points that indeed required immediate attention (such as: [6]), but the rest can be discussed at a later date. As much as I appreciate your review, simply not abiding by everything you list does not entitle a logical oppose to this nomination. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify, when Marshal and I discussed on my talk page, I said I'd close it Friday/Saturday if nothing much had changed, and since then John's concerns have been resolved and we've had an additional review, hence it's remained open. Now, it may be that some of Nergaal's suggestions are indeed not actionable because they don't follow football article conventions, and I know you've mentioned a couple of things and included a diff of changes above, Marshal, but it'd be easier for the FAC delegates to judge things if you responded to each of Nergaal's points to say it's been actioned or it hasn't been actioned because... Per FAC instructions, just don't use {{done}} templates or the like.
• Also, have I missed a source review above, i.e. one checking the references for reliability and consistent formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I'll address the points in a list (which should match, point-by-point, what has been presented by Nergaal:

Intro

• Addressed.
• Addressed.
• Disagree; Because: subject to personal preference; current introduction is the result of various past copy-edits (the last being conducted by Cliftonian), and I like it as well.

You mean you disagree with my 4 of my comments? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a single one, which you then proceeded to elaborate. I don't see how it can be interpreted in any another manner, but I respect your perspective if you disagree. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History

• Disagree. I prefer that the section remain without subsections because it makes the table of contents and the section too bulky.

You can have the TOC show only the 1st level subtitles Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• First international game was already mentioned, please read second paragraph. Friendlies are rarely important (i.e., the "first friendly" is unimportant).

Depends if the friendlies were before the first official matches. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Peru had no friendlies prior to the first official match.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Addressed
• Addressed
• Addressed
• Addressed
• Disagree; too much detail for summary.

After history

• Addressed. National colours.

I don't see how. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The introduction & body did not have the same information. Introduction mentioned flag, but body talked about national colours. I addressed the problem with the following edit: [7]. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean.
• Addressed. Section is 4 paragraphs, the standard summary length.
• Addressed.
• No image available. Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Rivalries

• Disagree; too much information. Also, information is not available without conducting WP:OR.

How can you talk about a rivalry without saying who is winning that rivalry? It is like saying USA and USSR had a big rivalry during the cold war and not saying one of them eventually failed. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal, the second sentence of the sections states: "The Peruvians have a favourable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile." This sentence indicates who is winning the rivalries. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Records

• Disagree; this is a World Cup record.
• Disagree; information is specifically related to Peru's Copa America record (second victory).
• Good, but not necessary.
• Addressed. Mixed the two paragraphs into a single one, removing extra information not directly related to the Olympic tournament.

Players

• Recommendation is against WP:FOOTY conventions. All football articles have the same table.
• Disagree. The player records section is at the end of the article.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just based on the above it does look to me that the nominator has made a reasonable attempt to deal with these comments, and I'd welcome Nergaal's response. In the meantime, a source review is still needed, and I've listed a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian & Nergaal, I have also addressed the supporters image recommendation. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian, Cliftonian appears to have done a source review above - did you want another? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Ah, I did miss that -- no, that's fine tks, Nikki, stand down...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That sorted, I still believe the nominator has made reasonable efforts to address the concerns of the one opposing review, so it's time (finally) to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Comment from Giants2008

• Comment – "the last incumbent was Uruguayan Sergio Markarian, who managed the team from 2010 from 2013." Last "from" should be "to" instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you Giants2008.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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