Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive2

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:13, 11 July 2010 [1].

List of Recopa Sudamericana winners[edit]

List of Recopa Sudamericana winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has complied with every requirement in the FL criteria. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

Several issues from the last FLC are still outstanding, especially regarding sortability. These should be corrected before reviews are made. — KV5 • Talk • 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • it is not clear whether previous concerns have been met.
    • lede cd use a copyedit, and peer review
    • re:sortability, i dont care, don't think it's particularly needed.
    • center align emdashes
    • Use of non-free image which is purely for decoration
FINALLY I figure out a way to sort the table and make it decent. Now everything is done.Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • what do you mean? It doesn't look sortable to me. (I don't care about sortability, but nevertheless). Sandman888 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "which was won by the former[3]" missing punctuation.
  • "format in which the competition is contested has varied greatly;" just "format of the competition has..."
  • "on a home-and-away format" not on a format, maybe using or in a home-and-away format.
  • "Many circumstances have surrounded certain editions" well, obviously. What are you really trying to say?
  • "a match viable to dispute" this is awkward and not particularly great English.
    • Again, please rephrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
        • "forced to play" ok, so better, but you need a reason for "forced to play" that's written in appropriately elegant text. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done.
  • "as per the" -> "according to the"
  • "at the home field " wouldn't "stadium" or "ground" be more appropriate than "field"?
  • "Ties in points will be broken first by goal..." odd English again, maybe "Ties in points are settled initially on goal difference..."
    • "Ties in points are settled initially on goal difference, then by away goals, and lastly by a penalty shootout will decide the winner of the finals." is grammatically incorrect, you could use an English copyeditor here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
        • "If a draw still exists...." Perhaps "If the teams are tied after full time" or whatever. The idea of "still exists" is a bit un-English. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done.
  • "after regulation of the second leg." what does that mean?
  • "Argentina is the most ..." strictly it's "Argentinian clubs are the most successful..." isn't it?
  • 2003 colours seem to be incorrect.
  • Campeonato Brasileiro is a link to a disambiguation page.
  • As this is English Wikipedia, I suggest the languages referred to in the references are in English also, so Spanish, and Portuguese please.
  • Ref 7, FIFA is the publisher not the work so shouldn't be in italics.
  • Ref 13, La Nacion is a work, not a publisher so it should be in italics.
  • Ref 18, USA Today is a work, not a publisher so it should be in italics.
  • Footnotes are complete sentences so they take a full stop.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is done. Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is fixed. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there isn't any fat on the article. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from MicroX
  • Wouldn't it be better that the winners be bolded instead of italicized? It's easier to spot bolded text than italicized text like here.
    • Unfortunetly, that is the sort of problem I ran into the first time (MOS:BOLD).
I think we should make an exception here because the bolding practice comes from the cup articles when a team advances in the bracket; we bold the team to indicate which team advanced. In addition, there are several other instances where we bold text, like when bolding the honors in club articles. --MicroX (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that year when Olimpia won both tournaments, wouldn't it make more sense for Olimpia to appear under the "winners" column only and the rest be spanned by "N/A"? After all, there was no score, opposing team, or opposing country that edition. --MicroX (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Despite the fact that Sao Paulo also won the two qualifying competitions". A less wordy version of this would be "Although Sao Paulo also won the two qualifying competitions".
    • You're right. I fixed it.
  • "Argentine clubs are the most successful of the tournament". "of" → "in"?
    • Done.
  • Has the point system changed over time? I ask because I notice that Nacional apparently won 3–1 in the first competition with a win and a draw. Or is the figure given incorrect?
    • It is accurate; back then, a team received two points for a win, not three like today.
  • Agree with the comment above about the non-free logo not being a necessity here.
    • It is not a requirement, true, but it is an added touch that "helps the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey". Call it a bonus for being specific.
  • What makes Soccerway (reference 2) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right again. I replaced that link with a more trusted source. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

RE: The previous table format I suggested:
  • I'm concerned about the unneccesary use of headers constantly switching between "Home team" and "Winner". By using an (a) and (h) [and (n), if neccessary] you can make seperate two legged matches with <br/> and then everything can fit under a Winner column. In my opinion this is a massive simplification and advantage. This would also give the option to add sortability (but I'm not too worried about that).
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:26, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Recopa_Sudamericana_winners/archive2&oldid=1089078909"