Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium national football team/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2016 [1].

Belgium national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the joint 10th oldest national association football team worldwide, a team that achieved an Olympic gold medal and topped the FIFA World Rankings. The needed attention has been paid to the description of all of the team's aspects throughout its long history, and to illustration with suitable images. In a prior FAC, it received plenty of positive feedback, but ultimately several issues related to prose and referencing came up. In response, intense efforts further smoothened the text and lifted the references to a very high standard. I feel confident that this article is FA-worthy now, but of course, any suggestions to further fine-tune its text or lay-out will always be welcome. Thank you for your comments! Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Support. A few points:

Resolved
  • "longstanding"—I think that's hyphenated in both US and UK English.
For a while it stood there hyphenated, but one moment I saw it in one word in another—featured—article and changed it. The online Oxford dictionary helped me out; you are right. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its supporters' group is named 1895"—I paused on that, and didn't want to. Maybe italicise the name, or put it in quotes? And would you consider "its support group ..."?
I received an objection against italicising it, as this might imply the name is to be italicised always. Then I would opt for quotes. I would not favour "support group"; either this might suggest that the members share a common burden (like support groups for diseases), either that they purely finance the team. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike raggle-taggle flagicons in infoboxes (bad enough when they're vertically aligned); the countries are already named. And on that point, the country-name pipes that go to specific sections or offspring articles are OK, but I see "Brussels" and "Belgium" and "London" and "England" just plain-linked, which is not encouraged. Can you unlink or find specific links? Just to be tiddly, please consider lowercase F in two places: "First in 1930". Just slightly smoother for readers to connect them better with the preceding.
True, overlinking is to be avoided; I will unlink these then. In order to apply lowercase, the template should be changed. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on the verge of being over-reftagged. They are all functionally different, I guess, and not consecutively repeated. Any opportunity to trim would be welcome; e.g. "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics, they achieved fair results (four wins in seven games), and played their first intercontinental match, against Argentina.[28][29][30]" ... does that need three separate refs? It's hardly contentious.
Good remark—I must agree. I counted 16 reference clusters with at least three references. In a couple of them I can cut down the amount without losing the proof for the mentioned facts, so you can expect this soon. I agree that at least any contentious material should be sourced, but I find that I should also strive to providing a source for any fact—except for the very commonly accepted facts. Kareldorado (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone further in because I got bored not being able to find glitches. :-) Must remember your username. Tony (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(reacting to just 1 point) I certainly agree about the flagicons, although it seems to be the de facto standard on all national footbal team articles to display the biggest win / loss in that way (even on the Featured Articles). Their 'chaotic display' and small relevance in an infobox (in my opinion) led me to gain some consensus to remove the parameters from that template in the past, although that was later undone. Instead of removing it, perhaps we can try launching a tidier way by removing the flagicons on this and other Featured Articles, and then try getting consensus to do it on all NFT articles. –Sygmoral (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the feedback and your exercises on better writing. Very soon I will reply to the points you came up with. Even though you stopped scanning I do invite you to keep going, since you brought up a couple of new things and are likely to find more points no one else would retrieve. The prose should be vivid enough to keep you reading. :-) Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sygmoral, good idea, thanks. Tony (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having positively reviewed this on previous occasions, I still consider this an examplary article and a canon for other articles to follow. Excellent piece of work and an encyclopaedic standard. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few further and minor issues

Resolved
  • "Twenty days later, the football boards of both countries, and five other nations, founded FIFA." Slight impression that the second comma makes it football boards of both countries, and the governments of five other nations. Can it be removed? And why not remove the third comma as well, in such a short sentence? Also, two plus five is seven. Later: "The day before the tournament began, the Belgian, French and Italian football boards founded UEFA."
Here and there, copy-editors added commas to make the text feel more balanced... however, unexpected word orders and ambiguity are the dangers that may pop up then. Once upon a time I had written "Belgium and France were among the seven founding fathers", which I changed because too narrative. I will rephrase this FIFA sentence and the UEFA sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1912, UBSSA began governing football only and". Consider: "From 1912, UBSSA governed football only and".
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In between," could be a little more natural with a back reference: "Between these,"
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 125th FIFA-ranked team of Armenia"—in English, where it feels natural, prefer the 's or adjective grammar over post-noun "of X": "the 125th FIFA-ranked Armenian team". Not available in Dutch, of course.
This is available in Dutch as well, but we would rather use the first way to avoid a long concatenation of adjectives I think. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still better as a bunch of adjectives. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgium's second-ever place"
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgium could not confirm their role as outsider at the European Championship with a quarter-final exit"—I don't get it (I'm not a football person, though).
Very good point. Without more context it is quite normal for outsiders not to reach semi-finals. "Shadow favourites" would be more appropriate than "outsiders" (to me "shadow favourites" expresses somewhat higher expectations), and it will make even more sense when I emphasise that the opponents were to be considered as underdogs. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the concept of "shadow favourites" only exists in Dutch, oh well. Kareldorado (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "christened"—very christian. If the equivalent word was used, and it's not WP's narrative choice, OK.
This is a synonym another editor introduced. Since most countries with English as first language have a long Christian background, I thought this word might have gained a neutral meaning in English already and did not revert it. Anyway, I can imagine that many readers (especially those with another religious background) find this word looking a bit weird in this context. I will search a neutral alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or those who think religions are manipulative lies. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not forget ourselves. Kareldorado (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable for a second-language speaker. Tony (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in fact even third-language speaker, after French. :D Well, your copyediting exercises and the input of native-English-speaking copyeditors surely helped me a lot! Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Nought else to add really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've followed the evolution of this article with great enthusiasm. Karel has done an excellent job. Nonetheless, I still have a critical eye for a few points that I think can be addressed for this FA review prior to supporting the nomination.
Resolved
  1. The "Nickname and Logo" section in Team Image seems a bit oddly placed. I'd recommend placing it into the "kit" section. I am also a bit confused by the "Logo". The nickname information was already mentioned in the "kit" section.
  2. I recommend separating the "supporters" section outside of the Team Image, as is done in the Scotland national football team and Peru national football team articles.
Those are my two recommendations. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marshal, once more I thank you for your input. The points you bring up here are constructive ideas, but I cannot totally agree with both, and will explain why. Logically, the distinction should be made between (1) what the players wear, (2) what image is hung up from them (something what is basically done by the media, the RBFA and the players themselves) and (3) the supporters. The image we have from the supporters is not the image from the player group, so I agree to set the supporters apart as distinct chapter. The nickname and logo are loosely and partially related to what the players wear, but none of both are 'part' of the kit. I think there is nothing really confusing in the fact that they have a logo, but therefore it is important to realise that the logo is something different than the badge from the team kit. Also for this reason I want to keep (1) and (2) strictly apart. However, I must agree that there is some unneeded overlap; we do not have to tell 10 times that the nickname Red Devils refers to the traditional red jerseys. Therefore, I will omit this explanation from the Kit sect and preserve it for the Nickname and Logo subsect. I am keen on your feedback once I am finished with it. Kareldorado (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Best regards, Kareldorado (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, are you satisfied with the adaptations? Kareldorado (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarshalN20, I considered the issues you came up with as 'resolved' (and therefore stacked them in the Resolved box just above), but could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - While I still disagree with some aspects of the article, it's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The current state of the article is, regardless of my minor disagreements, certainly of featured quality.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marshal. It is OK to disagree here and there; I hope that later on we can keep the discussions ongoing to keep on striving for perfection. Thanks for the useful sources you indicated me, not in the least Henshaw's work. Happy editing, Kareldorado (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • I didn't see an image licensing review above, not a source review for formatting and reliability -- you can request those at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Housekeeping: we had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing in the previous nom and there appeared to be no major concerns so I don't think we need repeat that here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

Hi Kareldorado, sorry for being so late with my comments. Although the article looks better than at FAC1, I'm still not convinced it meets FA. My comments, starting with the lead:

Resolved
  • I've argued this before and have not seen any reason to change my mind: the lead image is not a good image to convey the concept visually. A football team article should show 11 players, not a badge for its association. The badge should be reserved for the association's article. I see that Peru national football team, of FA status, has the same problem. Not a reason to keep repeating the error, I'd say. The image you have down in the Kit section makes a great lead image, as this is the most successful team as well.
This discussion is obsolete, and always ends in the association badge being regarded as acceptable. See Marshal's comments below. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment on the badge. Edwin, it seems that some clarification is needed so that your concern over the badge can finally be put to rest. First, placing the badge in the Infobox is a standard practice for association football team articles (see FC Barcelona) and sports teams in general (see Los Angeles Lakers). Second, it is important to keep in mind that the "national" football teams do not actually belong to the nation; these teams belong to the associations (or federations) that organize them. So, in the case of the Peru national football team, the team does not belong to the country of Peru, but rather to the Peruvian Football Federation. I hope that this clears up the matter. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is widely accepted, then I won't make a further issue out of it. I will always think it is a poor way to illustrate a team, but forever hold my breath. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you are critical on this one, Edwin, but there is no easy solution. The problem is that national teams usually lack a perfectly appropriate illustration for the team as a whole, contrary to club teams. A team picture just deals with one moment in time. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the paragraphs in the lead lack focus: the results are mentioned in all 3 paragraphs. They should be combined, all in the first: gold medal at Olympics, 2nd place 1980, 3rd in 1972, 4th in 1986. And that they topped the FIFA ranking between Nov 2015 and March 2016.
I found the lead pleasant to read, but have to admit Manchester City's lead (also FA) looks more straightforward than the current of Belgium's NFT or, for instance, that of the Peru national football team (no offense, Marshal). I have tried to rewrite it, please tell me how you like this:

The Belgian national football team has officially represented Belgium in association football since their maiden match in 1904. The Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) is its supervising body; at the global level Belgium's team is governed by FIFA, at the continental level by UEFA. Most of their home games are played at the King Baudouin Stadium in Brussels.

Periods of regular Belgian representation at highest international level, from 1920 to 1938, and 1970 to 2002, have alternated with mostly unsuccessful qualification rounds. From the quadrennial major football competitions, Belgium's national team has participated at the end stages of twelve FIFA World Cups, five UEFA European Football Championships, and three Olympic football tournaments. The most notorious results were their Olympic gold medal in 1920, ending as European vice-champions in 1980 and their fourth position at the 1986 World Cup. Other notable performances were topping the FIFA World Rankings (from November 2015 to March 2016), and the wins against four reigning world champions: West Germany, Brazil, Argentina and France. As of 2016, Belgium competes in the 2018 World Cup qualifiers.

The 1960s and early 1970s were the period of Paul Van Himst, the most-praised Belgian footballer of the 20th century. After his national player career, Belgium experienced two golden ages with many gifted players. Belgium has long-standing football rivalries with its Dutch and French counterparts, having played both teams nearly every year from 1905 to 1967. The squad has been known as the Red Devils since 1906; its fan club is named "1895".

Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the first paragraph has info that I think belongs elsewhere: "The squad is under the global jurisdiction of FIFA and is governed in Europe by UEFA—both of which were co-founded by the Belgian team's supervising body, the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA)". This would be appropriate in the RBFA's first paragraph, but not the team's. I'd move it down. Same for the stadium they play in. Okay in lead, but not in first paragraph.
I agree about that I over-emphasised the RBFA, but disagree about the stadium. Their stadium is their "playground", ever since 1930. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgium's national team have .." --> The opening sentence uses the singular for team ("has officially represented") but here you use plural.
I agree why you disagree. I'd opt for singular to be consequent. See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supporters' group" --> fan club?
Check! See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current coach should be mentioned in the lead, methinks
Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 1 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this point, I think mentioning him is not absolutely necessary since it does not add anything to the infobox at the right. Of course, some facts from the infobox are mentioned in the lead as well, but these are wrapped up in some additional information or help making the lead narrative. Kareldorado (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about world Cup 2018 qualification should be in the lead as well
Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 2 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping Marshal's advice in mind that the third chapter can help to 'bring the past to the present', I would mention this in the third part. Kareldorado (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

The rest of the article: the structure doesn't work for me. Rivalries is closely connected to the history, but are far apart. Management before home stadium is questionable. The Actions section (odd header) is misplaced and too long compared to other sections, given its relative weight.

Changing the structure always has it advantages and disadvantages. Somehow, every section is related to the History section, but they cannot all come directly after it. At this moment, Management does not stand before Home stadium. Do you suggest that Management would come first? Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that the current Actions section is misplaced is unfortunate to me. However, you are right that we should grab every opportunity to downsize it. As alternative titles I suggest "Social actions", or, maybe even better "Side activities". Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can easily cut "In 2008, hope surged when Belgium's U-23 won fourth place at the Olympics in Beijing; several of these Olympians later appeared on the senior team." It's not really tightly connected to supporters."
Not really, but it gives the background of why popularity rose again. However, you are right that the section is to be trimmed further, and the interested reader will have read higher in the article that a promising generation came up. Good remark, I will omit it. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref spot check: ref#90 has slightly different years than you have + no reference to Umbro: "Sinds in 1974 kledingsponsors het truitje van de landenteams mochten sieren, speelden de Rode Duivels met Adidas (1974-80), Admiral (1980-1982), Adidas (1982-90), ­Diadora (1990-98), Nike (1998-2010) en Burrda (2010-14)."
Good remark. I cannot be more specific than saying they played with Umbro in 1970, so it should be more vague. Part of the rationale of the slightly different years is already given in a footnote, I should still add a proof that they didn't play with Admiral in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I read through the article and must say that I am very impressed by it. Having made several copy-edits, I have only a few comments to make.

Resolved
  • This may just be me, but I prefer the current lead to the one proposed here. Some of the language in the lead here doesn't strike me as FA-level prose; for example, a "notorious" period of play sounds like those Belgium teams had a lot of unlikeable players, not that they were successful. Also, I wouldn't say a whole period belonged to one player, as this lead implies. Even Messi has a whole team of talented players with him.
  • While reading the article body, I encountered a couple of wikilinks that repeated as I went along. You only need one wikilink per subject in the body (tables excepted). I removed a couple for you, but it may be worth checking to see if there are any more.
I reduced them already considerably. I thought that for now it would be practical that some are repeated if certain concepts come back again, say, twenty times. However, if you strongly oppose against the rehearsal of wikilinks in the prose I am willing to remove the doubles. Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All caps in the titles of references 8, 33, 35, 82, 83, 85, 97, 124, and 126 should be toned down per the Manual of Style. The source reviewer will mention this anyway, so you may as well take care of it now.
  • Refs 166 and 177 are tagged as dead links.
They are tagged as dead links, but strangely enough they both still link to the desired information. When is it tagged as 'dead'? Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After checking both references, I can confirm that you were absolutely right. They do still work properly. It looks like a bot added the tag in early September. From my experience, the bot has usually been correct when tagging dead links, but this shows that it's worthwhile to click on the references just in case. I took the liberty of removing the tags for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these issues are resolved, I'm inclined to support FA status for the article, as it was a great read throughout. Well, not the part about the 2014 World Cup round of 16 game, but then we shouldn't have kept it tied that long anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive remarks. I agree the prosaic level of the current lead is higher than the proposed one, however, Edwin did bring up some relevant concerns. I'll start with slight modifications. This weekend, I will try to implement your proposed changes. As a small consolation about the particular sentence, I make you remember that the first ever US–Belgium encounter ended in a dry 3–0 win. :) Kareldorado (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I'll accept the explanation provided for the repeated wikilinks, in the interest of expediting the FAC. While I'd still prefer to see some of them cut, the article is strong enough overall that I won't prevent one nit-picky issue from further delaying my support. I hope to see more of your work at FAC in the future, if the level of this article is any indication. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Giants. You did make a constructive remark with regard to overlinking. I'll run through the links soon, allow double links for very important concepts, and try to avoid multiple linking and double links for less important concepts. Kareldorado (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

Resolved

Unfortunately there are some problems with image usage in this article, I fixed several of them, these 3 points should be OK now:

  • PD-old-70 shouldn't be used, when the author is unknown and may have lived 70 years ago. Templates for anon/unknown authors can be used instead for countries, where such laws for unknown authors exist. I have changed several images to anon-tags (see today's Commons:Special:Contributions/GermanJoe).
  • Images from online sources should include an active direct link to the source image, or to the content page where the source image is embedded.
  • File:Belgium supporters' club 1895.gif is currently at FFD, but should be OK (either fair-use on en-Wiki or free on Commons).

However, a few images cannot be used in their current form or need further checking:

These 4 images should be replaced or removed, if the mentioned problems cannot be resolved otherwise (all other not listed images are checked and OK). They could always be re-inserted, if these issues can be fixed later. The management portraits would be nice to have, but none of the affected images seems really essential to understand the article. GermanJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GermanJoe, a genuine "thank you" for thoroughly checking the appropriateness of the images! We are a big step further now. Of course it is a bit a pity that not all of the images could stay, however, dura lex sed lex, and these images are not vital to the article. Some can be replaced by other images. I will see what I can suggest as alternatives. Kareldorado (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe, as you might have noticed I wiped out the four problematic images and inserted three 'new' ones: the illustration at subsect Side Activities, the alternative picture of Martínez, and the Euro 1980 final line-ups at subsect UEFA European Championship. Do you see any image issues remaining, or do you consider all images to be OK now? Kareldorado (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kareldorado, all new images are usable and correctly licensed. Thanks for these fixes, I have updated the status above - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN15, 30, 31, 34, 39, 145, 224: page?
FN15&153: the source with missing page was redundant, so I dropped it.
FN30&31: problematic. I don't have access to the book in ref 30 now. The fact that this quote is written in the book with ref 30 (Guldemont, 1978) is given in ref 31. At the time I read that magazine, I thought the page number of the article would not be that important. For now, I substituted this sentence with another sentence.
FN34: the source lacks numbers. Can I point to the particular (numberless) Google Book page somehow, you think?
FN39: same as FN34
FN145: the entire book deals about this.
FN224: this source was used in the Euro 2000 Wikipedia article, but without page number, so I'll drop it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're citing sources that lack pagination, you should provide some other means of narrowing down where in the book we should look for this information - for example, using section name or number. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN59, 174, 201: newspaper name should be italicized
Ok, I corrected this. Kareldorado (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think FN80 is necessary
The colours of the Belgian may seem quite obvious... for now I will leave it, but if someone else also objects I will drop it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does FN101 have a location when the other newspapers do not?
No idea. Someone else introduced this reference, but I don't see the need of mentioning the location and therefore dropped it now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of FN118 here seems to be OR - it demonstrates that an album by that title exists, not that it has any relation to the subject being discussed
This relation seems extremely plausible, but I cannot find a source demonstrating this. Because of this (and also because it is a minor side remark) I will drop this part. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Website names are sometimes being italicized, sometimes not
This is not intentional, but purely depends on whether Wikipedia's template italicises that type of source (newspaper/magazine/"regular" website/...) Kareldorado (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Lulu.com is a self-publisher what makes McColl a high-quality reliable source?
Good remark. I just replaced this reference and the one mentioned just after it by a reference to a catalog from the Belgian National Archives, which refers to its own source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of your Google Books links are broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed them. Kareldorado (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this thorough review, Nikkimaria. According to Ian Rose's comment above, a spotcheck was not needed again following the one in the previous nomination. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I finished with answering your remarks, Nikkimaria. Feedback would be very welcome. Kareldorado (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Before we promote this, I just want to check with Nikkimaria that the changes to the sources are OK. Also, did we check whether Edwininlondon was happy with the changes made? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine by me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (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_article_candidates/Belgium_national_football_team/archive2&oldid=1138455835"