Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Football (soccer)

Football (soccer)

This article is well-written, comprehensive, and detailed. I think that this would make a fine FA. Raichu 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- very nice use of images and captions. Jkelly 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice article indeed (although I hate soccer) :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead section does not properly summarize the (rather long) article. Phils 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lead section:"maneuvering the spherical ball" feels a little too clinical. Shrinkness 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great article with appropriate usage of images and references. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- too many subsections resulting in a lopsided ToC. Needs to be reduced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sub sub levels needs to be reduced. 2.1 is redundant. Article needs a copyedit, and history is incomplete. Mention the origins of the sport across the globe. (A ref is on the PRC page). =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got rid of the sub sub levels and moved the history from within Laws of the Game to its own section above. I've added something about pre-19th Century games but still need to tidy the section and copyedit it thoroughly. Oldelpaso 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support enjoyable to read and is a thorough breakdown of the subject. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems good to me. MaxSem 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Messy structure, too many lists. Also, references seem a bit scarce. Convert the lists to prose, please. — Wackymacs 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted two of the lists to prose, and I'm working on adding more references. Oldelpaso 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other lists still need converting to prose, the article fails FA criteria 2a. — Wackymacs 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2a does not state that an article must contain no lists whatsoever! Sometimes lists are the best way of presenting information. The article only uses a few short lists, so I don't see what the problem is. — Dan1980 11:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it does not say that. But it does say the prose must be "... compelling, even brilliant" - this isn't what I call compelling or brilliant, sorry. The lists are not the only problem, the overall context needs copy-editing. — Wackymacs 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article Arnemann 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support Good article, but pales compared to FIFA World Cup igordebraga ≠ 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article --Zoz (t) 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Article, though a summary of the history of the game since 1904 might be useful. --Volcanopele 20:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very very good article, definately featured article quality in my opinion. -Benbread 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article has improved an awful lot since the last time I read it. Fixed a few minor things and it might need a thorough copyedit by someone fluent in English (unlike me...), but as I am certain that it will be done, this FAC has my wholehearted support. – Elisson • Talk 21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a very good article, one deserving of FA status, and I can see no major (or minor) problems with it. Th e Halo (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative, explains the subject very well for people not familiar with the sport. Dan1980 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is, indeed, very informative and cleary describes the game, its intricacies and its development. This will make a most timely featured article with the World Cup beginning on 9 June running through 9 July. Alias Flood 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a fan of soccer, but a great article none the less :) --Chris 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice article. Kjetil _r 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]