Talk:Luka Modrić/Archive 2

GOCE review
here will note or correct the copy-edits:
 * - "Modrić made his debut a Croatian international player", did you intend "Modrić made his debut as Croatian international player"? ✅
 * - the info "...in the hamlet Modrići of the village Zaton Obrovački near Zadar..." should be included in the article as correctly shows where he was born and raised. In Croatia some small hamlets although having its own name and exact geographical location, are often administratively included in near big village (which was not always the historical case). Thus, Modrić was born and raised in the hamlet Modrići of the village Zaton Obrovački near Zadar, as the sources state. ✅
 * - it should be a space between "academyTomislav", removed "Bašić[which?]}" - Domagoj was the son of Tomislac Bašić, and both were important figures in his early football life, Modrić himself went to their funeral. That's why are mentioned in the article.--Crovata (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC) ✅
 * Hi Crovata; thanks for your comments here, 1) yes I made a typo, will fix; 2) I was generalising; is it important to state the exact location of his childhood home? 3) thanks; it was unclear which person named Bašić was speaking. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi 3) about the account was speaking Tomislav Bašić 2) in every biography the exact location, if there's correct information, is welcomed to be included. This is not a trivial information, like address or house size (some articles even have that info; his home was put on fire during the war, and later rebuilt, but that's a trivia to me, a bit too much). Think it improves the article. Lets say that some international journalist, who doesn't understand Croatian language to read those Croatian sources, goes on the terrain to find the place of his birth, perhaps even home. He will take a photo of the wrong settlement sign (Zaton Obrovački instead of Modrići), settlement panorama, perhaps even of the house.--Crovata (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think its important i'll re-add it; I'm giving up for the night. Wikipedia is not responsible for international journalists who don't understand Croatian. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Spurs, not the Spurs
, can you please stop changing "Spurs" to "the Spurs"? The club are known as Spurs, without the definite article - it's a British/American English thing. See Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, Britmax clued me in. d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Luka Modrić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923060022/http://www.jutarnji.hr/otac-luke-modrica-serviser-zrakoplova-hrz-a/231503/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/otac-luke-modrica-serviser-zrakoplova-hrz-a/231503/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160213135534/http://www.jutarnji.hr/uzivo--ajax---dinamo-2-3/271111/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/uzivo--ajax---dinamo-2-3/271111/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227035226/http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/19001/modric-delighted-with-first-madrid-title/ to http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/19001/modric-delighted-with-first-madrid-title/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427104033/http://en.uclratings.uefa.com/Player/TeamOfWeek/11 to http://en.uclratings.uefa.com/Player/TeamOfWeek/11
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502051410/http://en.uclratings.uefa.com/Player/TeamOfWeek/12 to http://en.uclratings.uefa.com/Player/TeamOfWeek/12
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160222204206/http://www.jutarnji.hr/italija---hrvatska-0-2--slaven-bilic-startao-pobjedom/151222/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/italija---hrvatska-0-2--slaven-bilic-startao-pobjedom/151222/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522151147/http://dalje.com/en-sports/luka-modric-in-euros-best-team-xavi-best-player/160205 to http://dalje.com/en-sports/luka-modric-in-euros-best-team-xavi-best-player/160205
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131210221646/http://espnfc.com/euro2012/en/news/1086938/musa-okwongathe-luka-modric-mystique.html to http://espnfc.com/euro2012/en/news/1086938/musa-okwongathe-luka-modric-mystique.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luka Modrić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607023502/http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/Actualidad_Primer_Equipo_en/1330147212128/noticia/Noticia/Real_Madrid_surpassed_5,500_goals_in_La_Liga_against_Malaga.htm to http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/Actualidad_Primer_Equipo_en/1330147212128/noticia/Noticia/Real_Madrid_surpassed_5,500_goals_in_La_Liga_against_Malaga.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530015222/http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/tournament/matches/match=300684/index.html to http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/tournament/matches/match=300684/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Miki Filigranski, would you like to explain here why you whole sale reverted my edits? Your edit summary "revert of images by manual of style, too many and it doesn't look good nor the images were better, again redundant info in the lead compared to other footballers articles, most of the sources are not reliable" will not do. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The change and inclusion of the most of images made a style of the article to look different, considering revision history such a thing wasn't done before for a long time (partly accepted by me), several of them were not focused on him or were placed in an inappropriate section. The number of his goals is redundant and not included in the lead, especially should not in the first sentence, in the vast majority of other footballers. As for the "...and among the greatest Croatian footballers of all time [nb 2]", doubt the CroatiaWeek reliability as an opinion source, as well as of Stuff Magazine, and ESPN doesn't support such a statement, rather re-use already quoted references 226 and 227, then it makes more sense. As for the amount of the transfer fee, is that according to inflation or what? Best to keep it as it is without conversion to another value.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski firstly would you mind going on to the article and correct the raw source link that is just sitting there? A consequence of whole sale reverting. Okay, I see you fixed it. Here is my problem: I have been making dozens and dozens of edits and you reverted the vast majority of them. Not okay. Next step should be restoring the article (don't forget to leave your contributions about the 2018 World Cup, which were good) and tell me what you disagree with here. That way we can fix it appropriately. I agree with you on the following: remove the "greatest Croatian footballers of all time" part and lets see where to go from there. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First discussion then we restore what we agree upon. Previous revision consensus is the basic point we move, not vice-versa. As I already said, are those two references RS? If not, it still can be reverted with the inclusion of reference 227 (basically there's no need of 226 because it's almost the same thing).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand how the process works, I'm just a bit concerned about your raised flags here and how you're going about fixing them. I'm sure most of them are RS but I'm sure one or two might be double dipping. Its really important that you understand that there is no such thing as "revision history consensus". There is only editor consensus and Wikipedia Policy. Just because someone has not added a picture in one section, doesn't mean someone else is not allowed to. Additionally, its completely fine and very common to add pictures of subjects that are not completely focused on them. You'll have to explain to me what is mean't by "inappropriate section" for images. We're also going to have to go over what "redundant" means when articles have policies for the lead section (MOS:LEAD) and infobox (H:IB). Furthermore, please take a read through MOS:LEADCITE which outlines when one does not have to cite (i.e. in the lead section). My point is this: if you revert to 00:04, 2 July 2018 and then add back your edits ("2018 World Cup: update") which were great by the way, we can finish this four times as fast. That way, you can say "take a look at this section, why is this picture there" and I can reply and we can decided wether or not it stays. This current method is going to be very time consuming. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please follow the BRD process, we cannot suddenly move to WP:OWN type of behaviour where you or I will reply and decide whether or not it stays. It should be only done with regard to the revision consensus. Yes there's such a thing as the "revision history consensus" - it is WP:SILENCE, and such a consensus existed until your edits. The "inappropriate section" was referring to the two images in the "Honours" section, the first more adequate for Real Madrid's article, and the second not referring to any specific award (now included in "International career" section"). The information about his goals is simply redundant, and such information is not included in the biographies lead of footballers, it's simply not an editorial practice. I won't repeat myself on the statement issue since you hesitate to edit it back will do it myself so we can move forward.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Miki Filigranski Lets get started. Firstly, WP:SILENCE is not a Wikipedia policy. Secondly, per Wiki, silence is the weakest form of consensus. Additionally that is not a justification for whole sale reversion. What I'm suggesting is called discussing what goes on an article, its kind of the basis of Wikipedia talk pages, it has nothing to do with the WP:OWN policy. Okay I can agree with the two images in the awards section as being better off else where. Now, before we move on to the 30+ edits you reverted, please explain what you mean by "editorial practice" and "information is not included in the biographies lead of footballers". Tell me why the information is redundant. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy or not, that's a form of consensus on Wikipedia which cannot be broken by your suggestion to revert to your revision which was reverted and you will decide whether or not it stays. Information is a statistical fact, basically a trivia, usually not mentioned in the lead of other prominent footballers, mostly except some attackers, but especially not in the paragraph of the first sentence, for example, see Andrea Pirlo, Xavi and so on. Alright, on some nice things we agreed upon and were included with some editing (lead sentence for being "among the greatest Croatian footballers of all time", lead transfer fee information, some images from the 2018 World Cup). Comparing revisions, is there something else? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay so you're jumping around here. That form of consensus and my choosing to restore first and work backwards are unrelated. Just because it is not mentioned in some articles about footballers doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned in other article of footballers. Just because the sentence "He has scored over 670 senior career goals for club and country" is on the Cristiano Ronaldo article and not on Neymar, doesn't mean the latter has to have it. The opposite is true. A footballer doesn't have to be a forward or an attacker for the sentence "He has scored over 70 senior career goals for club and country" (Luka Modric). If its not considered trivia on the Lionel Messi article, it shouldn't be considered trivia here. For example, if I were to come across Mario Götze, an attacking midfielder, I would't hesitate to add "He has scored over 60 senior career goals for club and country". Lets address the goal count issue first before moving on. LivinRealGüd (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ronaldo and Messi are noted because of their goal-scoring records and it's more than a simple trivia in their case in comparison to the vast majority of footballers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There we go. Now thats a reason to keep the sentence out. Okay moving right along: why was the sentence "Luka Modrić is a Croatian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Spanish club Real Madrid and captains the Croatia national team... reverted to "Luka Modrić is a Croatian professional footballer who plays for Spanish club Real Madrid and is the captain of the Croatia national team...? LivinRealGüd (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He is primarily a footballer and hence is more simple and understandable to the general audience to have explained his position in the subsequent sentence.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Every footballer is primarily a footballer. When I look at the roster at Real Madrid C.F., most of the 47 members of the ream have their registered position in the lead sentence. E.g. Keylor Navas is a Costa Rican professional footballer who plays as a goalkeeper... Dani Carvajal is a Spanish professional footballer who plays as a right back... Jesús Vallejo is a Spanish professional footballer who plays for Real Madrid as a central defender, etc. Why is Modrić different? LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't have the subsequent sentence about the position. If you insist that much and it is such a minor issue, then add "...who plays as a midfielder...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, next: why was the picture in the Tottenham Hotspur 2008–09 season section reverted to the current picture? LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The was from the 2010–11 season for which we already have a better one, while for 2008 another which also has him in the focus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, The current photo is really, really bad quality. The other one is of better quality and shows the subject in a different capacity. According to MOS:IMAGES, one does not need to have the subject "in focus" for images and images can be placed out of chronological order for illustrative purposes. For example, this picture rings close to the guidelines regarding MOS:PERTINENCE. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not the best, but also it is not of such a bad quality. We currently don't have a better image for the specific season (and "When possible, try to find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones"). In other words, you don't find the image suitable because of its quality for the article and would remove it? The description and context of the image (Modrić (far left), preparing for a penalty kick for Tottenham, 2010) is not really supported according to PERTINENCE as it says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative..." (see also WP:IMGDD "Don't add images that are not relevant"). The policy doesn't say anything about chronology, but considering the general practice of editing biographies (see for e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi), they should be placed chronologically in this kind of articles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, I removed the picture and replaced it with the alternative. How is my alternative not relevant or significant? Its a picture of Modric in-play with Spurs. Its primary purpose is not to be decorative but to supplement the given context. Take a look at Zinedine Zidane's club career section. The section has a date range from 2001 to 2012 with an image from 2003. Modric's Tottenham Hotspur section ranges from 2008 to 2012. Within the entire Hotspur section, the image can be placed, editors have not because of the abundance of alternatives. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion is really pointless... Reverted the image. Let's move on, what's next? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, okay so in the next section, the Real Madrid 2012–13 season, I moved the photo of Modric with the Sevilla to the right to make use of the open white space and to balance out preceding quote box. I've seen the practice done on Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, and others. Why was it reverted to the left? LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The quote was a WP:SYNTH because the statement was made in the middle of the season (January 2014) and didn't have any mention of Modrić's passing accuracy. The wording is off. I am also not very fond of having such a quote there because we already have a section for that, "Reception", and the statement was already partly quoted there (Predrag Mijatović said Modrić became "Madrid's best player, with Ronaldo"). However, alright, considering the number of such quotes in other articles one exception could be constructive and moved the statement&reference to quote box. Also reverted the image with caption in "Reception", but kept it at left because the layout seems better that way, visually it weights to the left.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, Miki Filigranski: so, I think that image with Modric and Sevilla would be best placed at the top of the Real Madrid section (so dates line up) and a tad larger so it fills up space. Either way, moving on. So it seems like the Modrić playing in the 2015 UEFA Championships image was moved down, thats okay... my edit just moved it up a section. Doesn't look like he revert was too severe. This brings us to the international career. It looks like the image I put was replaced with a rather similar image and the caption remained the same, so I'm fine with that. Okay so later in this section, I put a small gallery of images (2) showing Modric with select players in international contestations... why was that reverted? It looks like the image of him kicking at the World Cup was moved down to the appropriate section, that works. But why was my gallery removed? LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The image with Sevilla cannot be placed at the top of the section because the dates don't line up (the first paragraph is until December 2012, second from January 2013). Other articles (Messi, Ronaldo...) also don't use such a practice. The gallery images lacked relevance - first isn't specific for Modrić (also this one, or this with some editing, are better or more interesting, but perhaps could be located in "Honours#Club#Real Madrid") and other articles (Messi, Ronaldo...) generally have only one image at the top, but context being specific individual award as the Ballon d'Or and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I placed the image, but I am really not fond of it or rather indifferent in regard to the layout.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, the image with him and Sevilla is dated February 2013, as far as I know one can place any image within the correct year. Its under the section "2012–13 season". I see that practice done at Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. Actually, I don't like the image of him Real during the 2018 championships, I agree it looks a bit tacky. Perhaps the image you presented here will be better suited for the section. I disagree with your assertion that the gallery of images are not "relevant" both showcase Modric with another player. He is in focus, albeit not solely. I would understand where you came from if it was an image of him playing with the entire Croatian team or against more than one player. Its plenty focused on him and complements the section well. One could even add images of him in-game during the 2018 World Cup (when they are posted) to the gallery. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally is not, also the first image placement is due to the quote box. The Sevilla's image is appropriately located (and looks alright in both large and small display resolution). As for the gallery, showcase of Modrić with another player is not the point and context - that's an award and per WP:IMGDD we should not "overload articles with images", the images should be relevant. So, I temporarily changed the image considering that both consider it a bit better suited, but which section revision (image) you prefer?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, okay I like that alternative in the club section a lot better. Instead of the gallery, lets put the image of Modrić playing with Neymar during the 2014 World Cup in the 2014 World Cup section. That way there is a section, space, image...section, space, image... just like there is on the aforementioned articles. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I put the image. I think now it has more than enough images. Anything else?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, the next thing I did was move the style of play box to the right to balance out the Reception image to the left. If images are all put to one side, its usually to the right as there are no section headers there. For example, it would make more sense to have all three images in the international section to the right as there are smaller, more fragmented sections. You've got it right in the reception section, the image is appropriate on the right as there is a large section header there. So why was the box moved back to the left? LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be all on the right side because of section headers (see Messi's article), and it depends on display resolution. The box is left because other quote boxes are on the left, the third international image would push it further down and wouldn't be enough space between them, and with few images also on the left, there's layout balance. It doesn't look nice when all the images are on the right because not all sections have enough content to accommodate that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski: I think what needs to happen is that the style of play section will need to be filled out, that will take time. I see that my caption was retained in the reverts, so that is it for my edits. Thank you for working with me. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience because your constructive input made the article better.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Several sources were identified as WP:DAILYMAIL and they need to be replaced with reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

the same thing goes for Serbian tabloids Kurir, Informer etc., so please don't revert them as they don't pass WP:RS. The source had a propaganda intention with information which is not mentioned in any of Modrić's biographies and so it cannot be easily verified (doesn't pass WP:VERIFY), nor the information is relevant for the Modrić's early life section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the same, the supposed Serbian ethnic background cannot be verified in reliable sources and hence won't be included in the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cropping photos?
I suggest cropping two photos that have empty space, allowing space to increase their sizes. They are in the and the  sections. For both I suggest leaving the full size vertically, and cropping horizontally to exclude the players in the background and empty space to the sides. After that, I think we can double the scale to show more detail in the photos. What do you think? Frlara (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that they are fine as is. I think its good that it shows Modrić in-play, at least in those sections. Its kind of like the president of a country shaking a constituents hand...etc... I think we're a tad heavy on images anyway. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but the same opinion as LivinRealGüd. It's alright to have images which don't have a centered perspective. If the images are on WC then you're free to do an extraction/cropping and then we will see.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead playing profile
The current lead goes as "...plays mainly as a central midfielder but can also play as an attacking midfielder or as a defensive midfielder, usually deployed as a deep-lying playmaker. Modrić is widely regarded as one of the best midfielders of his generation,[nb 1] and among the greatest Croatian footballers of all-time.[nb 2] Able to blend traditional and trequartista playmaking effectively, he is known for his precision in execution, tactical strategy, and as an accelerated deep-lying pivot". Is the last sentence needed at all (a bit repetitive compared to the first two)? Is it a proper summary of "Player profile", all in comparison to Andrea Pirlo, Xavi and so on?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the last sentence is repetitive, good to remove. I added the sentence because I wanted something that described him as a playmaker and a player. For example I'm seeing on Andrea Pirlo: "due to his vision, ball control, creativity and passing ability" (player) and "Pirlo was usually deployed as a deep-lying playmaker in midfield" (playmaker). One sentence describes his role, the other describes how he executes that role. I like how the article specifies how he is deployed on the midfield, but I also like how on article an e.g. Manuel Neuer, you see specific traits embodied by the player. It appears that Modrić's playing style seems to be somewhat unique and notable. Thats just my motivation for adding the sentence, if theres a better way to express the info, I'm okay with that as well. LivinRealGüd (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Early years
Early Years section deserves its own link. It has much distinct from Club Career. GenacGenac (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Legal Issues
Per edit, I expanded the sentence into sub-section "Legal issues" (as such exist in the article of Lionel Messi). Today was published by Sports Illustrated another source Luka Modric's Croatia Success Story Comes With Complications which basically reports the same thing which adds weight to be covered on the article. Should it be included until conviction? What do you think about the paragraph neutrality? Should it be included that Modrić received public insults (reported by international and Croatian sources) and threats of death (reported by Croatian sources, the exact wording of "threat of death" = "prijetnje smrću" found at, and the morbid images are obvious threat of violence and/or threat of death)? If I am not mistaken, such things are not common for footballers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski: interesting, I havn't heard about this case. Anyway I've read all of the citations you provided and first I think having 3-4 citations on a sentence is over-citation. Perhaps it would do good to trim those down to two citations a sentence. I'm drawn to this passage from one of the citations (| Sports Illustrated):
 * I then turn to this passage from another citation (| The Guardian):
 * It appears that Modric himself has not been signaled as a criminal nor has he engaged in criminal activity. He was a witness in a criminal proceeding. I really like how these types of legal issues have been covered at Lionel Messi. As of right now it looks a tad overweighted. We should certainly have this section but the only thing in it should be 1) exactly what happened in very, very simple language 2) lots of context and 3) how this impacts Modric. The two passages I have selected above seem to do a top notch job of explaining the facts and context so I think they should be a starting point for the section. Just for reference here is whats on Messi's page:
 * We should try to emulate this style as close as possible. Its a really good example of neutral writing and due treatment. Basically I think that the first sentence should be re-written with the above three quotes in mind. The second and third sentences should be deleted. The last two sentences are really good and should be kept as is, perhaps with a slight trim of citations. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a small edit. Modrić's quote kinda gives a neutral perspective. We should be careful with the trim of citations because not all of them have the same related info. Could you make an edit or write here an example of the paragraph?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, something like this:
 * In March 2018, after Dinamo Zagreb chief Zdravko Mamić was convicted with embezzlement and tax evasion, Modrić was called as a witness in Mamić's trial. During the late 2000s Modrić signed multiple contract extensions to play at Dinamo and transfer to Tottenham Hotspur. Modrić annexed most of his transfer fee to Mamić as he was the broker of the move and gave Modrić financial backing early on in his career. Despite stating in 2016 that he signed the contract ten years prior, at his testimony he stated that he signed them in 2004–the date of his first contract. Modrić was charged (i.e. formally accused) with perjury for stating that he annexed his fee at an earlier date then he had. Facing the judge, he said, "I came here to state my defence and tell the truth, like every time so far. My conscience is clear". The Croatian Football Federation stood behind Modrić, but a part of the Croatian public which was frustrated with the corruption in Croatian football perceived the alleged perjury as a defence of Mamić and became critical of Modrić. This has resulted in public insults and threats of death to Modrić, which has been criticized by the public and current management of Dinamo Zagreb.
 * From what I've read your last two sentences are perfect summations of the public's perception of the ordeal. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, will make an edit according to that. If am not mistaken, he was a witness during the trial, not after Mamić's conviction.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct, it was during his trial. Thanks for correcting. Also, I don't know if you want to do anything with this quote form the SkySports citation: "On the one hand, there are those who claim that Modric could not be expected to know the specifics of the law. On the other, some claim that he is just as responsible as Mamic." Seems to be short and explain the sides well. I'll just leave this here on the talk, if you want to see if you can work it into the existing paragraph go for it. I think your last two sentences do a good job at explaining the sides--just another quote to consider. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I've read your last two sentences are perfect summations of the public's perception of the ordeal. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, will make an edit according to that. If am not mistaken, he was a witness during the trial, not after Mamić's conviction.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct, it was during his trial. Thanks for correcting. Also, I don't know if you want to do anything with this quote form the SkySports citation: "On the one hand, there are those who claim that Modric could not be expected to know the specifics of the law. On the other, some claim that he is just as responsible as Mamic." Seems to be short and explain the sides well. I'll just leave this here on the talk, if you want to see if you can work it into the existing paragraph go for it. I think your last two sentences do a good job at explaining the sides--just another quote to consider. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

why did you consider the part about insults as unnecessary?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As well removed Modrić's quote? How was that another "correction"? Please don't make such edits without checking the discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * you are not responding, and yet continue to make disruptive edits removing correct and sourced info. Stop before you get reported for such behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered the part about "public insults" and "threats of death" dispensable because in the sentence before it's already mentioned that the public became critical of Modrić. How do I "continue" to make "disruptive" edits when I didn't remove a single source in the "early life" section? I simply corrected a poorly written text. Btw, don't threaten me, just report. You have a history of adding unnecessary info, like in the Subašić article where you considered that he should "declare" himself to be Croatian --Helptottt (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a substantiation as it had WP:WEIGHT. You did not remove a single source nor I said that, yet you are removing reliably sourced information which is relevant to the understanding of the biography of the subject - that's not a correction. Please stop lying, I never considered that he should "declare" as that was what Subašić said about himself in sourced quote.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018
Sentence to be added regarding Luka Modric childhood as follows:

"During the year 1990 5-year old Luka Modric was accidentally filmed by a film-maker Pavle Balenovic in a mountain hamlet as a goat-herder around Tulove grede location, in a what was at that time a wolf habitat. The film was about the local wolfs in the Velebit mointain. "

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvbd-ye3U9E Pavlemocilac (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not needed in the article. Kante4 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That information is not relevant for encyclopedic content and it sounds like a promotion. If it was reported by reliable sources that he helped his father or grandfather in goat-herding perhaps that info could be included in his early life. Also, if there is a photo perhaps it can be uploaded on English Wikipedia, or Wikimedia Commons by the copyright holder (P. Balenovic), and placed in early life section.-Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)