Talk:Belgium national football team/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Good work. Let's make it better. I am using as a base the work that I did for Peru national football team. The basic idea is to follow WP:SUMMARY editing where appropriate, because we need to keep the reader in mind. I consider that GA reviews should ideally result in exemplary organization, whereas FA reviews should focus on refining prose and the like.

Infobox[edit]

  • Please explain the reason for the brackets in the nicknames.
The reason was that the article (de/les/die/the) is not always needed (individual players can be referred to as "Red Devil(s)", but it is usually used. The articles are written with a capital because it is the beginning of a word group, but this should not be the case in a sentence (like is the case in the introduction). I will drop the brackets then - better readable that way. Kareldorado (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same situation occurs in Spanish with the article "la". What helped me out was searching for the English sources (rather than the Spanish sources), to see what they use; in my case, they preferred "La Blanquirroja". It may be the same or different for Belgium.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I plan to finish the text adaptations with this part. Kareldorado (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph should not be a single sentence. It should present basic information.
  • Why not make the second paragraph about achievements, colors, and rivalries?
  • Third paragraph is good for a brief history.
  • An optional 4th paragraph is good to bring the history to the present.

History[edit]

Compared to 9 days ago the History section is now +/- 350 words, 4 images and 1 section smaller. I am still looking whether I can drag information away to other sections, and how I can get it 'smoother'. Kareldorado (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me the subsections seem handy to hoover over the history and zoom in on one aspect. As a reader, to me no subsections would look "neat", yes, but discouraging to look up general historical facts. The timeline is not (and should not be) as detailed as in the History article. Other articles that show subsections in the History section are Barcelona (8), Croatia (6), Man Utd (5), Germany women's NFT (4). However, I do agree about the narrative flow and that it should get thinner; for this, I want to outsource some parts to other sections as you proposed. Kareldorado (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Barcelona and Croatia articles are good points in your favor; remember to use these for the FA review if you still decide to keep it with sub-sections. I do, nonetheless, think that the Germany women's team also favors my perspective—this is because they don't have a history page, so it is correct for them to use sub-sections.
Another reason that I consider the historical summary as better is that it will make use of less sources and information (therefore, it would be easier to defend during any future reviews).--MarshalN20 Talk 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a maximum of two images. Images that show action are generally the better suited for an article (but it's up to personal discretion).
I don't want to have as much as many images here as possible, but the four I kept now seem quite important for the article to me: 1st team ever - action picture of only victory at major tournament - picture of generation with best achievement at WC or EC - action picture of the other golden generation. Besides, several FA articles of football teams show at least as many pictures in the intro: Barcelona (15), Sunderland (8), Man Utd (7), Malmö FF (5), Liverpool (4), York City (4), Germany women's NFT (4). Kareldorado (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the better part of yesterday trying to find more images (in Spanish) for Belgium, but I am surprised that there really aren't that many available for free use.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for searching anyway. Yes, a pity, right? To me it was at the same time surprising ànd disappointing, luckily our good neighbours, the Dutch, do provide some databases for free images and newspapers. I used these several times for information in the main page, records page and unofficial match page. Kareldorado (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never have images sandwich a text (see MOS:IMAGES).
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Team image[edit]

  • This section should be prior to the records, but before [after] the basic information of the team (kit, stadium, rivalries, etc.).
That is already the case, or did you mean "after" instead of "before"? Kareldorado (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant after. Sorry! The reason behind this is consistency within the article. First we want to know everything about the team, and only after do we want to know about its image.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed so, it seems logical to me - done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid text sandwiching.
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Could it be possible to move the Fellaini fan to the sub-section with the bullet point list?--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why, great idea! I hadn't considered that before but it also suits quite well there. Kareldorado (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform[edit]

Addressed points
  • Too many images. Reduce to the essential (one or two, preferably one).
The Belgian flag was least essential since it is easy to describe its colours, so I dropped it. About the historical uniforms: it is not the perfect excuse, but also Manchester United F.C. (FA rated club article) and Croatia national football team (GA rated) show the full shirt history. Note that I can stack the shirts closer together. Kareldorado (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I can partially understand the ManUTD kit evolution gallery due to the variety in the original uniforms. Croatia doesn't have much of a history as a national team (relative to other national teams), so that probably explains why the kit evolution gallery makes up for the lack of history. Belgium's kit has the red tradition since very early in its history (a tradition even older than the Peruvian uniform!), with slight alterations since then. Per WP:GALLERY, having the kit evolution image for Belgium is not appropriate. Perhaps consider using a team image that best displays the uniform. You can also make it larger (per WP:IMAGESIZE) to "upright=1.4" at most.
Hey, here you gave me a good and elegant idea! You will see my proposal for a solution. Kareldorado (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better. Definitely more professional. I am, nonetheless, a little bothered by the image only being colored in the shirt. Could it be possible to find one that is fully colored?--MarshalN20 Talk 15:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid so, therefore I coloured it myself. On the internet I have been looking for it a couple of times, but I could not find something similar to Uruguay's colourised 1930 World Cup squad. Would it bother anyone if I coloured the rest of the picture myself as well - a bit realistically, of course? Kareldorado (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider it to be acceptable now? Kareldorado (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is needed to do away with the shirt history display at the main page, I might as well show it at the history page. Kareldorado (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that there are several mini-sub-sections (bolded one word lines). Several are in this section, but others are found in various parts of the article. These all need to be removed and the text better integrated. I also made use of these in the past (so as to avoid making the table of contents too large), but was told that it was inappropriate per the Manual of Style (Mos).--MarshalN20 Talk 15:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. With me they served the same goal but I will erase them then. Kareldorado (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now there are no more bolded one word lines starting with ";" that serve as mini-sub-sections. Kareldorado (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kit manufacturer's table in the uniform section is an unnecessary template. The citation is also a little bit messy. It would look much professional if the information was placed in a short paragraph.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many FA articles also use similar manufacturer's tables... but I really don't want to defend this at all costs. I agree the citation looks a bit messy, and also the following thing. After the prose above, you see "sentence-box-sentence". So, I will convert this into text. Kareldorado (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better if I listed the kit sponsors more Aston Villa-style? This would mean: less prosaic, but also more exact and more concise. Kareldorado (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aston Villa it is. Kareldorado (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium[edit]

  • Needs citation: "Apart from local events it also hosted eight European Cup and UEFA Cup Winners' Cup finals, as well as six European Championship matches."
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs citation: "This catastrophe called for a drastic architectural transformation. After a decade of renovations, the modernised stadium was named after the late King Baudouin I in 1995."
Done - sentence corrected and reference added. Kareldorado (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Training grounds information should be better merged with the section.
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries[edit]

Addressed points
  • I would like to see a better summary of the rivalries of the team (instead of separate sections for each rivalry).
The text became slightly smaller, the text more relevant. Still too large, you find? Kareldorado (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I assume something I can and probably should do is removing the information that is not directly related to the team itself - the tournaments that the national FA's wanted to organise together and the women's competition, say. Kareldorado (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needs to be improved. Opening paragraph and records in the last paragraph.
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I like the Belgium-France image due to its historic importance, I can't help but consider that it is unnecessary for the section. The drawing of Belgium-Netherlands is a much better visual aide than two teams standing side-by-side. I think that it should be removed from this article (but I do plan on creating an International football article where it would be featured prominently).--MarshalN20 Talk 23:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I am okay with tossing that picture. It is a small section after all, and I also think the drawing is best, for three reasons: it has a creative aspect, it shows action and it depicts a match with their "biggest" rival (considering the number of games). The place for the Belgium-France image is Évence Coppée Trophy. Kareldorado (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Uruguay and Argentina beat us in playing the first match between independent countries. :) Kareldorado (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managers[edit]

Addressed points
  • I think that more works needs to be done about the managers. The tactical element is something worth exploring (use Peru as an example). Nonetheless, I did find it very difficult to obtain information on managers for Peru; let me know if this is the same problem for Belgium.
I can say something about tactical approaches of at least three managers - I guess I will need to find additional sources for that. Until now the playing systems (like 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1) and tactics were mentioned throughout the History section (in the applicable era), but honestly, putting it in the Manager section is more logical and readily accessible for readers. Kareldorado (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Having the tactics associated with the managers is also a good way to boost the importance of the managers/coaches. I think most football aficionados don't pay much attention to their value aside from their win/lose streaks. We need to show them otherwise.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, less than I would want, but at least something. True, managers seem to equal only W-D-L and trophies everywhere. Kareldorado (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be done tomorrow. Kareldorado (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce number of images.
Getting rid of the image of the assistant would do? Kareldorado (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a step in the right direction.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go step by step in the good direction - done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to see more text relative to the table and pictures.
I agree. Kareldorado (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is a healthy balance IMO. The tables should just fully appear I find, like the current and recent players. Kareldorado (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the section title. It seemed a more stable format. I also was toying with the idea of titling the section Management instead of Managers. Which do you prefer?--MarshalN20 Talk 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely prefer "Management", for a double reason. Not only the manager, assistant manager and GK manager are mentioned in the Current staff heading, but also people that belong to the management in a broader sense (without the title of "manager"). Apart from that, in the prose above we discuss more "the way managers manage" than the people behind their names. Kareldorado (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Players[edit]

Addressed points
  • Good. The "previous squads" section is interesting. I would recommend having a section on notable players; but this is optional. I like to use this section to highlight past greats (this way also avoiding mentioning too much on them in other parts of the article).
Done. At first I thought the interested reader might be prepared to pay attention to the notable players as mentioned chronologically in the History section, now I have to admit that this info and the small parts on tacticals are better put aside. Kareldorado (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue box quote in the "notable players" section detracts from the flow of the section. I suggest to better implement it as part of the text.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and even more than that I find it may look a bit odd how it splits the two text parts, right in the middle. I want to fix this soon. Kareldorado (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent results[edit]

  • I am not a big fan of these tables. It attracts too many IP editors...and we want to avoid that for stability. I created the Peru national football team results for this reason.
I have had a big discussion on this one with Sygmoral. Personally I am ok with dropping the recent matches, provided readers can easily have access to them via a link. What is your opinion about the table of the current campaign, are you ok with that? Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the FA reviewers will want all of it gone per WP:RECENT and something about us not being a sports website. At the GA review level this is not something that would disqualify the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to know! Kareldorado (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are gone. Kareldorado (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following my recent discussions on the WP:FOOTY talkpage, I get the impression that including the standing in the current campaign (which in this case would be UEFA Euro 2016 qualification Group B) should be acceptable. I conclude this because of the arguments being called to keep 'Current squad' the way it is, which is that WP:RECENT is only meant to avoid recent information with undue weight. The players of a team are obviously very 'weighty' information (although I have reservations about the exact current format, but hey), while 'recent matches' may contain too seperate and loose information, and cause instability concerning article edits (as the original post here mentions). The table-overview for the current campaign, however, feels like something that could be on the same level as the player tables (i.e., it carries 'due weight'). It only shows an overview, does not cause instability (it's edited elsewhere), and I believe that for many viewers it is just as relevant as the current selection of players.
I would personally add it at the end of this section, with a preceding title 'Current campaign' and perhaps a one-sentence intro. Also, I would then change that current last line to "Recent results and upcoming fixtures are listed at the 2010s results page." and rename this main section to just "Results and fixtures", i.e. without the word "forthcoming". Sygmoral (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, but I agree with all of the above you wrote about re-introducing this box with the standings. :) My main reason is that we already include current players and staff; how this bunch of sportsmen actually is performing "at this very moment" - about to qualify for the upcoming tournament or not - is just as relevant IMO. Indeed, this qualification box seems not very "weighty" since only the standings table and the concise team-versus-team match overview box is shown. That is a lot less than showing all match details and the relatively unimportant friendlies. Also, as you pointed out, it would not be prone to editing as this happens elsewhere. Marshal, do you have any other consideration about this? Kareldorado (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the logic behind avoiding recent results is that it is difficult to have editors maintain an up-to-date version. It's also difficult to maintain article stability. If you really want to include this table in, perhaps a good solution is to have a strong (mostly stable) section that can balance things out. Would you consider creating a "Records and statistics" section (similar to the one in the Peru national football team article) which would combine the 7th section (Results & Forthcoming Fixtures) and the 11th section (Records)? The table could be included within this section (which would be at the end of the main written text). Let me know your thoughts.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that logic (concerning stability/up-to-date-ness), but what we were considering was merely to transclude the qualification group table, which does not require Belgium-only editors to keep it up to date: also editors of (in this case) Wales, Israel, Cyprus and Bosnia as well as any others interested in the UEFA qualifications will keep it up to date. Would you not agree this negates the issue of article instability and the difficulty to keep it up to date? I do understand however that content-wise, we would be missing a flow if we just 'throw it in' there. I see how there could be a way to combine those two sections you mention. I have some ideas, I'll try it out in a sandbox and link it here. Sygmoral (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... User:Sygmoral/Belgium national football team - Records and statistics. I changed only very little text; it's mostly the current "Records" and then a reworking of "Results & Fixtures". I think that this way, the table sits there as a "by the way", rather than focussing too much on it. I think the flow isn't that bad either, in this order? It does have a large amount of links at the top, but I don't see a way around there. Better like this at least than the bulleted list we currently have. (That third link, the Managers table article, may need to be renamed) —Sygmoral (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is good idea to combine both sections, Sygmoral. Tonight I will make a section proposal based on what you already made. Kareldorado (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Credits to you, Marshal, the section combo was your idea. :) Kareldorado (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion for the title of the section that combines the two sections is "Records and fixtures". This is a broad term covering everything; the word "records" refers to both match results and achievements (team&individual), the word "fixtures" refers to the entire match calendar - past, present and future. I would toss the sentence about the rankings since not only the infobox contains that data, but also the article text already mentions the 2nd place at the FIFA Rankings twice elsewhere. Kareldorado (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive record[edit]

  • Minor tournament records should be better mixed with history and rivalry sections.
There is a (better) referral now from this to the other sections, and vice versa. Kareldorado (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All match results and statistics must be cited. Several parts of the section are missing citations to serve as sources that verify the information. This is probably the major fix the article needs prior to being a GA.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot prove you wrong in this comment, at all! I will do an effort for this in upcoming days. Kareldorado (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the "Competitive record"-section. I should still do this in upcoming days for the History section - several claims there are not referenced yet. Kareldorado (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in History section: done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honours[edit]

  • If the other sections present the right information, this section should not exist.
Again: it is not the best excuse, but most if not all club articles do present this information at the main page. For me, it seems a handy overview to see them listed. With "summary style" in mind, only the major honours are listed. Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to think about repetition and article size. The latter affects how fast a page loads for a user, and those with older/slower computers will struggle to read the article if it has too much size. Moreover, the most important honors for a national team should have already appeared in the introduction and infobox (as well as in the history, if not team records).--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but the Honours section is quite parsimonious and it refers to the minor honours, which I would never incorporate elsewhere in the text because of too little value. I can and should cut away some more or the article size, I agree, but some sections (like Rivalries and Results) are more eligible for that. Kareldorado (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Records and statistics
  • Instead of a bullet point list, I want to see paragraphs with the information.
Good suggestion, I want to adapt that in upcoming days. Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Reserved to discuss points in GA review. I hurt my arm over the weekend, so I am unable to really add much material on the review (I plan to add more as my arm heals and I can type with less pain).--MarshalN20 Talk 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, get well soon! Kareldorado (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to let you know that I am still reviewing the work. I am reading the material to check that everything is in order. I am also attempting to help colorize the team's image. I will see if the photography lab here can do a better job than me.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The colorised pic: alas! But that was perfectly understandable since we pursue an encyclopaedic style. Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too happy with the photography lab decision. I still think that a colorized image would have been good. I prefer that to relying on "fair use" photos that can be unpredictably subject to removal.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit the same with me - I think it is clear enough that I could not retrieve the original colours and that this was an attempt "to give the past some colour" and to visualize the old-fashioned colour pattern. I also know that it can be hard to defend fair use images - they can quickly disappear for good. In the worst case I will simply put there a football kit box with the 1904-1957 colours. Kareldorado (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Player tables[edit]

  • I understand the reasons to remove the Recent results table. I am a sucker for consistency though, so I want to voice my concern about the Players tables, as I feel much of their contents are equally culpable of 'Recentism'. Especially when you look at core players that are sitting outside of the main table due to temporary injury or suspension, while first-timers may be sitting in the 'main' table for months even if it's unlikely they will be called on again.
I believe the information needs to be formatted differently. I do realise there is no precendent for this, and that the Peru article has these same sections, but if we can figure out a better way here to display the 'current core team', it may benefit multiple articles. I believe the challenge will be how to determine "the core team": who is 'worthy' of inclusion in the main table. The actual team that has been selected for the next (or most recent) match would then be something else, and does not even need to appear on the main article (just like 'the next/previous matches' themselves no longer appear). Sygmoral (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wild first idea: include players that have at least 3 caps and have also been selected at least once in the most recent 3 matches. It still has the word 'recent' in there, but it will be more 'averaged', and should give a better idea of which players are considered to be in the core team. By keeping the required caps low, it allows quickly rising stars to be included, while also quickly retiring players that have not appeared in the last 3 or more matches (and can not therefore be considered to be part of the current core team anymore - even if they may rejoin later). But as I said, just a wild first idea. Sygmoral (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sygmoral! Thank you very much for the comments. This type of change would best be discussed at the WP:FOOTY talk page, which is where the Wikiproject on association football creates guidelines (such as player tables). GA reviews follow guidelines, but do not create any where there is one already in place. I appreciate feedback from other editors in the GA review, so please do comment here if you have any further thoughts or questions.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems the best place to discuss such a thing that would affect all NT articles. Kareldorado (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about the same thing, but that is simply the difference with club teams and national teams. A club player is supposed to last for a season, a national player not. His career can begin or stop all of a sudden. It is welcome that you think of those things as well but honestly, I think it is the last and least of our concerns now. What is a bit more of a concern is: which of the current players are worth it to be already in the "Notable players" part? Those who won a club trophy or personal trophy in a major club competition? I put players that belong to (often play in) the current 'golden generation', but that is no guarantee for individual quality. I look forward to your suggestions (and the say of others as well, of course). Kareldorado (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realised this would probably be an out-of-scope suggestion, so now I'll go put it on the the WP:FOOTY talk page (see here)! Thanks both of you for your comments. Sygmoral (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So anyway, people over there didn't agree that the player tables should be changed in any way -- except for one guy that did voice a concern I've also had since quite a while: there's something with those INJ symbols. I think they are a bit confusing right now. They do give useful information, but they're not consistent: "INJ" says something about the most recent selection, while "SUS" and "RET" say something (that is true right now) about the player. I think it makes sense to put "SUS" and "RET" right next to the player name, but I feel like "INJ" is in the wrong place there because it is not the most relevant information anymore. I would therefore take emphasis off that INJ symbol by putting it in the column 'Latest call-up' (as one editor actually did a few weeks ago). I think that makes more sense. And perhaps those symbols actually need their own references then (who says they are suspended / injured / retired?). (Finally, I would no longer use that 'red cross' symbol to indicate whether a player is currently injured.)
Note that those INJ symbols are not included in any WP:FOOTY template proposals, so we could just try create a precedent for more sensible use on this article :) —Sygmoral (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What INJ, SUS and RET have in common is that they inform why they were not selected while you would expect so - in other words, they emphasize that the problem was not necessarily that they were lacking qualities according to the manager. We might as well use a less confusing asterisk (*) and state below the recent call-ups "* Missed last selection due to injury, recovery, suspension or retirement from international football". The very interested readers can look it up then it they want. What do you think about this? Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think they give a different kind of information. But let me get the meanings straight first: perhaps there are actually two different meanings for INJ: either the player was never selected, or they were selected but they later had to withdraw. I think the former is hard to verify, and also it does not match with the legend for INJ which says "had to withdraw". The latter is easier to verify because it's in the news that they in fact had to withdraw due to injury -- so I'm currently continuing under the assumption that "INJ" only makes sense for players that were in fact selected, but at a later date had to withdraw -- right? (If not, we need to make sure this is defined correctly.)
Yes, of course they do give different information. But, I prefer putting a 'broad' generic comment below, something like "Could not be selected or withdrew from the current squad due to injury, recovery, suspension or retirement from international football." Kareldorado (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, there are two meanings, in the past I have used INJ both for players that could not be selected or withdrew due to injury, based on news reports. Kareldorado (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case then, the question for me is how intuitive the INJ symbols are. Today, three players have that symbol, and I think they are misleading. Let's read carelessly and see which on-first-sight meanings may come to mind: I would say either "oh these guys are injured" or "ah they were not selected today due to injury". Neither are correct, because that INJ symbol actually applies to that call-up in the rightmost column: e.g. Defour had to withdraw from the Cyprus selection, but today the manager simply didn't want him. That's why it makes so much sense imo to put the INJ symbol over there with "v Cyprus, 28 March 2015". It also makes it more clear that he did not in fact join that selection against Cyprus, which you may currently be led to believe.
Not too intuitive, that is why I propose a broad generic comment to indicate that he failed to be part of the current squad "for a special reason". INJ is misleading indeed, spontaneously one thinks "oh, but he plays again?". Kareldorado (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SUS and RET however, do directly apply to the players themselves: SUS is actually a status you can put on a player as soon as it happens, until it 'falls off' (perhaps it should have a note for how many matches and therefore until which date they are suspended), while RET also directly applies to the player, and stays there until he is removed from the table 1 year later. The SUS and RET symbols also do not apply in any way to the right column (most recent call-up), because that most recent call-up is from before they got their SUS or RET status. —Sygmoral (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more. Are you okay with introducing the generic asterisk, to indicate that someone failed to be part of the current squad "for a special reason"? With the last call-up at the right hand side, people can still see whether he was selected for the last match or not (e.g.:Vermaelen was injured for long time, and of course his last selection was a long while ago). Kareldorado (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I've been slow in responding because I'm still not convinced :) The asterisk you suggest may be too generic... In any case, SUS and RET are not exactly that common, so perhaps it's not such a big problem that when they do occur, there are 2 or even 3 'different symbols'. The main issue that needs to be tackled - in my opinion - is making sure that the meaning of any symbol (whether INJ or *) is clear. One thing you may have cleared up is that it should always be in respect to the most recent squad. Meaning we only ever put INJ there if the player was not selected NOW. I think that in the past the "INJ" may have lingered there in the table, just because they were injured at their most recent selection, regardless of whether they were even considered this time around. If we change that and make sure it only appears when the player was seriously considered for the current selection but was/got injured, then I think that makes it a lot more clear. Thomas Meunier is still injured for example, if I remember correctly, but unless Wilmots specifically mentioned somewhere that he would otherwise definitely have selected him, he does not need the INJ symbol. Mousa Dembélé on the other hand has sadly injured himself yesterday, so would move to the 'Recent call-ups' section with the INJ symbol -- ideally even with a <ref> next to it :D, because that's never included in the main squad publication (and a separate Notes section under Recent call-ups). I mean, so apparently it's decided that it doesn't violate Recentism, but that doesn't mean we should throw all other WP guidelines overboard! :p
Finally, the legend for the INJ note should then also read more clearly that the player is not in the current squad due to injury, so that it can't be confused with any previous selections. —Sygmoral (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We keep going. :) I will continue this conversation at your talk page, allrightie? Kareldorado (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

Reserved for final decision and comments about it.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for the moment I am done with the article and I will leave the text like it is now for at least a couple of days. As you might have noticed I have still been working at the Uniform part (about the kit sponsors), I added some information about the governing body, checked the dates of the references, used synonyms and added more references here and there. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA Review[edit]

 Done 1. Well written: a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

 Done 2.Verifiable with no original research:[3] a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] b.all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and c.it contains no original research.

 Done 3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

 Done 4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

 Done 5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7]

 Done 6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]

Final Comments[edit]

The article for the most part meets all of the requirements of a GA. There are certain aspects that I am not totally comfortable with (including the subsections in the history section, the honours section, and the minor tournaments subsection), but this cannot be held against this article for two reasons: (1) The national football team Manual of Style template is outdated and allows for too much style variation in its vagueness. (2) Passed FA (and GA) articles for football teams also vary greatly in design. Last suggestions: I encourage Kareldorado and other authors of the article to submit this for review at the Guild of Copy editors (WP:GOCE) to help in improving the prose; I plan to help as well during my free time. The FA review process is far more rigorous than the GA Review process, and it is important that the article be strong (in prose, sourcing, and content) and stable (meaning few changes on a daily basis). Make sure to keep up-to-date with MoS format updates. Congrats!--MarshalN20 Talk 03:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it is a relief - and thanks for all the efforts of reviewing and "steering" the article in the good direction. Don't worry about the parts you do not feel too comfortable with: I will most probably erase the Honours and Minor tournaments (sub)sections, because of the limited additional value. I will ask some others what they think about the History subsections, however, after the prose reduction I have to admit they became somewhat less useful. I definitely want to submit this to the Guild soon and will leave the article more stable. First, I enjoy the moment and wait a couple of days before further action. Yay! Kareldorado (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of the article editor(s)[edit]

During upcoming two weeks I will try to solve one or two issues daily. It is great to see this article reviewed by one of the best placed editors to do so, namely one of the two who improved a national football team article to FA status. The Peru national football team page is for this reason indeed one of the best examples as a guideline to strive towards GA/FA. Other examples that can help IMO are other FA rated football team articles (from clubs) or GA national football team articles. Anyway, I am glad to see the many constructive proposals. Kareldorado (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Do let me know what other articles you are using as models when presenting responses. Remember that I am simply evaluating the article based on the GA criteria, but I will also abide by precedent if other articles exist that support a different perspective. That said, my primary encouragement for WP:SUMMARY is that, during FA reviews, the more concise information is easier to support than the longer information (FA reviewers also prefer to read concise articles rather than long ones).--MarshalN20 Talk 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, most of all I want to fulfill what is needed from GA perspective, but I am also willing to modify details that might help a later step from GA to FA. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note for myself: main issues yet to tackle are: makeover of Introduction - optimizing History length - Rivalries (summary, no minisections, citation) - increase Manager length including some tactics - better integration of Minor tournament into other sections. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belgium_national_football_team/GA1&oldid=1127486720"