Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium national football team/archive1


 * 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2016.

Belgium national football team

 * Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the national association football (or soccer) team of Belgium, more specifically the senior men's team. I believe it should be featured because of the broad scope and the high care given to sourcing, prose and illustrations. Comments of independent editors were "[g]ood work", "quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this" and "excellent, thorough and widely comprehensive". After it obtained GA status, a double peer review and copy editing by members of the GOCE (among others) lead to further prose improvement. Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Already of high quality during PR, it only got better since. Congratulations, . Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (note personal involvement: I nominated the article for DYK after it became GA, I am not involved with the content) - Good overview of the topic, supported by sufficient decent references. Reads well, neutral wording, no recent changes. It has been checked by enough editors, and has sufficient maintenance by the author, that I feel comfortable to support this article for featured article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments taking a look now. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Need to link to Brazil and West Germany national teams at first mention in body of text.
 * Good point, I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Through the History section, a sprinkling of notes on key players at various periods would be good. I'd incorporate the notable players section into the chronology.
 * That was also what I had done before. However, this greatly expands the History section and I think it gives the reader less appetite to keep reading through it. On the reverse, it is a lot easier to find things about the team as a whole, and about notable players if you have these sections apart. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok more of a style thing and not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a traditional predominance of either french or flemish speaking players?
 * Irrelevant IMO, but probably a Flemish speaking majority most often since most (roughly 60%) Belgians live in Flanders. In the 1980s and 1990s most well-known players were Flemish speaking, except for Michel Preud'homme, Philippe Albert and Enzo Scifo. Note that some notable players have been from Brussels and accordingly are pretty much bilangual (Van Himst, Kompany, Lukaku). Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have significant issues over WP:RECENTISM in the History section, a common issue in such articles. To illustrate my point: you've squeezed 60 years of history into one paragraph, followed by 35 years over 3 paragraphs, which is a sixfold increase in space allocated per year. I do understand that those were underachieving years, but nonetheless... --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good remark in order to shift the article towards more balance, Dweller. I want to stress that originally the 1920-1979 period took three paragraphs and it was stuffed with multiple sentences on notable players. However, the situation is what it is, and to compensate for it I think it would be good that I would (among others) add another sentence illustrating the "world champion of the friendlies" nickname in the 1970s, and further squeeze the 2002-2012 underachievement years. Do you have suggestions for other interesting things to mention for the 1920-1979 period? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''I already made it more equilibrated now, but feel free to give additional comments or to carry on materials that you might find relevant for the 1920-1979 era. Kareldorado (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better now, thanks. I've not reviewed thoroughly enough to support, but I have no issues with the nomination. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Support: The article is excellent, but, to further improve it for FA quality, I encourage Karel to turn the tables and look at the article from the perspective of the reader. And not just any reader, but one that is not necessarily a football fan. This is a strategy that I follow in the articles that I write because, at the end of the day, I am more interested in knowing people were not bogged down by excessive information and stats.
 * I couldn't agree more, and therefore I hope this review also attracts 'less interested' people, in the sense that they are not specifically interested in football or sports. Other people can provide fresh views, however, I feel lucky that editors like you can also still provide new insights. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: The nickname "Red Devils" is presented here and in the kit section. I would recommend for the information in the history to be integrated with the one in the kit section (as it would be easier to find this in that section than in the history).
 * ''I opted for moving over this part into the "Mascot and logo"-sect as the nickname served 3 of 4 times as inspiration for the logo; since every mascot was also a logo I made it "Nickname and logo". Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: Is it really necessary to mention the low-countries derby in the history? I don't think there's a need to repeat information.
 * True, it is already clearly mentioned in the lead and the rivalries section (where it is stated that these were cup matches) - dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: Why is it important for the reader to know that three Belgian players died in the First World War?
 * ''This is not necessarily a rhetorical question; note that there have been other events in which multiple sportsmen died that were considered noteworthy (see Munich air disaster and Munich massacre). If many more - say, 10 - national team members had died, it probably would have been more notable. Since it seems very likely that similar numbers of casualties due to wars happened to other sports teams as well, I must agree that this sentence was probably not that important, so I dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: Ideally, match scores should be placed only if truly necessary (and, I would argue that there is no real necessity for it in the history section; notable results should be present in the records sections). I think removing them and smoothing out the narrative would improve the prose (and flow of the reading).
 * Ok, I dropped them... what's your opinion on the "Competitive record" sections - would you leave out most scores there as well? Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: Why is it important to highlight that Brazil's Pele confirmed something about Belgium? I think the source is good enough.
 * Not that important, I simply wanted to show that this mock title was not just an inside joke of Belgians, but that it was also used elsewhere. I dropped the sentence part now and kept the source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: Overall, the section's best paragraphs are those where you narrate the story. The not-as-good are those where you rely more on the results. This is nothing to specifically address, but wanted to point it out just as a general thought.
 * True, but the painful thing is that sometimes there is simply not an exciting story to be told instead... so then I am stuck with mentioning results. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Structure: Team image should not be the last section. Think of it like a sports book or magazine. It is usually at the end where the stats and records are located (and these should, therefore, be the last sections). Where to place it? Probably somewhere before the players section. I'd recommend before or after rivalries.
 * Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Team image: The actions section would be better if it was not listed with bullet points. Can you craft a narrative version of it with the available information?
 * Done. Kareldorado (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Players: Why not make the "Previous squads" subsection into a table and place it at the end of the article (similar to Peru national football team)? I think it would help remove the excessive weight in the section.
 * Players: along the same lines, I would highly recommend for the "Player records" section to be mixed with the "Records and fixtures" section (which I would rename "Team records and fixtures"—I plan to do the same for the Peru article). Why? Because these are not just player records, but they are records for the team itself (i.e., specific to Belgium).
 * Partially done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Records and Fixtures: I would place this section at the end.
 * Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These are the thoughts I have in mind at the moment. I hope they are not too much! Best regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 08:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, they are not few but I welcome every constructive remark! I am not sure I can make every adaptation this weekend, but we will see. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Good job Karel. Remember that you can always continue to improve the article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Although there are a few bits of text which could be made more concise without losing meaning (I've fixed one), I think the article as a whole is admirably comprehensive. Well done! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and good job. If you can indicate some of the sentences that still appear to be rather long, I'll give it a try to further cut them down. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes -- Hi Kareldorado, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC? A belated welcome in that case! It looks to me that we still need: These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or one or two of the reviewers above might be able to oblige... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Image licensing review
 * Source review for formatting and reliability
 * Source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask newbies to jump through
 * Thanks to point this out. I have been more busy last week irl, but in upcoming couple of days I will do the request. Kareldorado (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Current Staff: I don't see any reason to list a number of anonymous employees — podiatrist, nutritionist, video analyst, etc — in this section. A number of national and club football articles have become bloated by adding every employee listed on the team's website, even though these employees are not discussed in secondary sources. We should just keep the manager, the principal assistant coaches, and not many more than that. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your view and - partly - agree. The fact that they work more behind the scenes does not mean that their role is trivial, however. A podiatrist is a orthopedical physician, and because of that function seems notable. Wilmots stressed the importance of his analyst at some moments. However, I did not add staff that 'merely' fulfill an administrative function, like the makers of T-shirts and PR-representatives. I stand open for discussion, however, and am willing to drop these staff. Any other people's views? Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need for medical personnel to get their own table, nor the need to list seven people here, most of whom the public has never heard of. The fact that the only cite here is to the RBFA website and not to any reliable independent secondary source is telling. Are there reliable independent secondary sources discussing how important these people are to the team's success? I am, however, like you, interested in others' views on this topic. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the table has been removed. That resolves my concern on this issue. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Competitive record: Not a fan of hiding all the tables. I quite enjoy glancing through articles and seeing a table of the World Cup record, and I suspect a number of casual wiki readers won't realize they can easily unhide the table. I am in favor, however, of not showing tables of every minor tournament the country has played in. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what I oppose is that probably many readers are not fans of scrolling and keeping on scrolling. These tables won't get shorter, it will be the opposite. The tables are good and made with the needed detail, however, they would explode the visual size and the weight of numbers and statistics if expanded, IMO. Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't want all these tables displayed fully here, as that would lead to a lot of clutter. However, I don't like the current red boxes on the page, they seem a bit of an eyesore to me. One option would be to list the World Cup table in full, but erase the other tables completely and put them on the linked pages. These are just my suggestions on how to improve, and I don't feel strongly, so if you think it's best left the way it is, so be it. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Notable players: These sections often create issues, particularly where they include current players, as various fans keep adding their favourite. The list of today's players in this article has 17 players. Surely half or even most of these are not among the best ever for Belgium. For example, the forward Origi has netted only 3 goals for Belgium in his career. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Image Licensing Review
 * File:Gust De Muynck Belgium-Netherlands 1931.jpg is missing a US public domain tag
 * File:Édouard De Laveleye.jpg is missing a US public domain tag
 * File:BEL-LUX SO1928.JPG is missing a US public domain tag
 * File:1920 Olympic football final (Belgium v. Czechoslovakia), penalty Coppée.jpg is missing a US public domain tag
 * Brief comment on references: I generally keep the bibliography as a separate section from the references section. I also think that it would help make the article less bulky.-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks; licenses have been added and the bibliography stands apart now. Kareldorado (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from edwininlondon
I enjoyed finding out facts about the team. And a team that ranks number one surely deserves a featured article. A few comments about the lead:
 * 1904. I'm not a fan of link labels that don't give a good sense of where it links to, and you have a few of those in the article. The 1904 in the first sentence is a good example. A link 1904 should go to the 1904 page, that's what happens elsewhere on WP. But I don't think that is useful here, we want a link to the Évence Coppée Trophy page. So better would be to rephrase the lead and spell it out.
 * I agree, put a better alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need a footnote with the names in the 3 local languages in the lead. Further down maybe, although I'd nix it altogether.
 * Edwin, do you mean both the translation of the official name and the nickname?. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, why tell the user the translations? This is the English wikipedia. I don't see any other similar article doing this. Peru national football team does not give the Spanish. Say I would could footnote B altogether. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "alternated with major difficulties in qualifying" is rather vague and leaves the reader guessing: did or didn't they ever qualify?
 * Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Is where they play so important that it warrants mentioning in the first paragraph? I don't think so.
 * I don't know, but several featured football team articles do mention it. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well, just leave it then. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the 3rd paragraph should be dismantled. The first two sentences do not have any notable info that justifies being in the lead. The next sentence "After winning four games at the three Olympic football tournaments in the 1920s, the team failed to win matches at any major tournament finals in the next four decades. " largely repeats what already was mentioned earlier. The last sentence could be rewritten and merged with the golden eras paragraph.
 * I largely agree and kept the core items. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "qualified for Euro 2016" that doesn't strike me as making it a golden generation. I would drop it. Key fact is they top the FIFA ranking.
 * Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe a squad should be the lead image, not the same image as shown on the Royal Belgian Football Association. I've brought this up on the Project Football Talk page in October. Surely the reader expects to see players wearing the typical kit.

More later, once I've got my football bible, The Ball is Round, in front of me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As much as you enjoyed reading it, I now enjoy receiving these justified comments, Edwin. Upcoming week (and as soon as possible irl) I will try to apply and/or comment to all of these remarks and suggestions. I am also looking forward to your fresh input based on your football bible. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've made minor changes already, as you may have noticed, hope you agreed with those, and here are my comments for remainder of the article. My main concern is about links. Sorry, but I just feel strongly about having good links, as unpredictable links damage WP's overall user experience as well. I'll explain below:


 * "Belgium was the first mainland European country to play association football". In The Ball is Round Goldblatt writes that Denmark was the first in Europe outside the British Isles to set up a club (1876), and organise themselves nationally (1889). See page 120. He does not give a date for when the first balls were kicked in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Belgium, the first beachgeads of football on the continent (p. 119). "one of the first" seems to be a good way to describe this.
 * Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "does not recognise these results" I'm not keen on this being a link. Once you start internal links like that, then for consistency many other mentioned results should also link. I think it detracts more than it gains. I checked the Peru national football team page, of FA status, and that has no internal links as far as I can see. The link for "unrecognised friendlies" is equally dubious: instead of finding out what is meant by unrecognised (as happens with the link for exhibition matches) the reader is unexpectedly shown a list of results. I would not link that either. My view is to have no internal links at all, but am keen to hear what other, more experienced editors think.
 * I agree for both reasons. Kareldorado (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "the first manager of the Red Devils" This is the first time the Red Devils are mentioned outside the lead. I couldn't find anything in the MoS, but more experienced editors might be able to advise whether it's fine here or whether the Red Devils needs to be introduced here as the nickname, with explanation. I would explain. In any case, in the lead it is in italics, here it is not, and in the Kit section it is in quotes. My interpretation of the MoS is that italics is not advised, not sure about quotes. I'd opt for just plain text. Whatever you choose, be consistent with the White Devils.
 * There used to be a long explanation about the Red Devils just before saying "the first manager of the Red Devils"... I will re-introduce that info in a short sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "As the White Devils, Belgium had" I think linking is used here to avoid explanation. I would just explain and no link.
 * Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "At Euro 1972, their first Euro appearance, they finished third. " For such a significant result, there is not enough information. Whom did they lose to in the semis? Or at least Who did they beat to win bronze?
 * Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Beginning with a second-place finish at Euro 1980," again more info needed. Fewer words are spent on this than on some friendlies against Morocco, Cyprus Japan, which feels wrong. Link to the UEFA Euro 1980 Final page
 * Done. Kareldorado (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not keen at all on the link labels for the various years. Users will expect it to go to a generic page about the year. See if you can rewrite to "Euro 1984" etc
 * Link to the 2002 World Cup is missing
 * "and took the top spot" it sounds so much like an afterthought, while it deserves a sentence on its own. It's too significant to be hidden away.
 * Home stadium section: I think there is too much irrelevant info here. Good info, but relevant only on the stadium's own page, not here. I bet one paragraph suffices.
 * See also: Television in Belgium: another example of overlinking.
 * I agree, not really an article about the Belgium NFT in the media. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Decades later, television became a more popular medium for football broadcasts" seems plausible, although the radio was very popular before tv. In any case, my point is: source?
 * I cannot defend this claim, so I dropped it now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "As 59 per cent of the Belgians speak Dutch and 41 per cent French,... third official language in Belgium" also needs a source
 * "matches are transmitted in both languages" sounds a bit odd, maybe "matches' commentaries", or maybe rephrase to something with "both Dutch and French channel"?
 * I admit it sounded a bit odd, so I tried to make it more logical saying the commentaries are provided in both languages. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as a section name seems a bit odd. Maybe do Supporters, like Peru national football team page
 * Not necessarily odd, but at least not clear enough - one might think of support in the financial or medical meaning or so, so I also opt for "Supporters". Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "as of 2014" are any up to date  numbers available?
 * "a defensive tactic developed in the 1960s by Anderlecht coach Pierre Sinibaldi." Goldblatt on page 187 talks about offsite traps used by Newcastle Utd in the 1920s. So developed should not be read as invented. Maybe a bit of rephrasing. Sorry my French is not good enough to understand the source.
 * True; the article describes him as someone who systematically applied it and a perfectionist but he did not necessarily invent the tactic or made it perfect either, so I rephrased it. Kareldorado (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Master tactician" Goethals .. "not be bigger" When quotation marks are used the person saying it should be mentioned.
 * Ok, I mentioned him now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think the staff is notable enough beyond assistant coach and goalie coach. A whole table for this takes up way too much space. A simple sentence should suffice. The Peru page does not have this.
 * There has been debate about this, but I also think these are the very core figures of the staff, so I followed your suggestion. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "nearly blind" is said by whom?
 * Fixed it. I will try to make sure that every quote with " " will be accompanied by the person to have said so. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The show and hide doesn't do it for me. The legend is visible when WC record is hidden.
 * Solved. Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Forward Robert Coppée had converted .. pitch in the 40th minute" needs a source
 * "discussed early penalty" is that disputed or much talked about?
 * The first meaning; I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Inconsistent ISBN format. Most are ISBN 13 but a few are ISBN 10. Easy to convert them here: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter
 * Thanks for pointing out this convertor, I didn't know that this switch could be made easily. Kareldorado (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not checked the sources. If no one else does, I could, if you'd like me to. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, from tomorrow on I can try to solve multiple issues a day. We can await the demand for source checking at the Talk page a couple more days - you did already an incredible effort - but else, yes, you'd be welcome to do so. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review
 * I'm seeing inconsistency in source name formatting (see fn 2 and 7, for example).
 * Fn 32: Why is a cited source in Further Reading? And how are we citing it if we don't know the page number?
 * This is a difficult one. The second source mentions the first source to have mentioned it (naming the book with author and title). However, I don't have access to the 1978 book itself... Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Several web sources are missing "retrieved" dates (see fn 59 and 64, for example).
 * Fn 75: What makes this a reliable site per WP:RS?
 * Fn 82: What makes this a reliable site per WP:RS?
 * Fn 152: Page number? I don't understand your remark about "numberless book pages".
 * The thing is simple: these are pages from the books that are mentioned (and can be accessed through the links), but for some reason the page numbers are not visible or made unvisible. A quick search with Ctrl+F (or readthrough in case of a single page) can lead to the quote. Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fn 199: Page number?
 * Same problem as the previous. Kareldorado (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources need a fair amount of work to properly formatted with the missing information. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Source spot check
 * Fn 34a, OK.
 * Fn 49, OK.
 * Fn 63, OK.
 * Fn 70 fails verification: Leads to a page of scores. I don't see any article with this title. Maybe you have the wrong link there?
 * It used to be the good link, but apparently it was not a permanent link to the article - I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fn 194, OK. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I should note that a large number of the sources are in Dutch and I can't check them. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dutch source spot check
 * ref 2 is used in infobox, but source says Wilmots is coach only till 2014. Surely there is a source for his current contract
 * I replaced it with the article stating that he prolongs his contract until 2018. Kareldorado (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 6 ok
 * 7 ok
 * 11 ok
 * 19 not ok. Ref should link to page 2 of the list on the target website. Page 1 shows no official matches 14-18
 * Fixed. Kareldorado (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 20: source reports on Belgium France, but nothing about exclusively, and it is written before the war ended
 * Totally correct, so I omitted "only". Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 54 ok
 * 79 fails verification. This page is not about football.
 * Yes and no. Via this page, easily pictures can be looked up showing the jerseys the Belgian team wore in several years. Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is sufficient. I think the guidelines say the article should do the hard work, not the reader. Are there any other sources you have used in this way? I noticed that 77,Historical Football Kits, is also not giving me Belgium kits. I had to click Euro 2016 and then search for Belgium to get to it. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 84 mentions different years for Adidas (till 1991) and Diadora "Adidas (1974-80), Admiral (1980-1982), Adidas (1982-90), ­Diadora (1990-98), Nike (1998-2010) en Burrda (2010-14).
 * I know. Even though this is an experienced journalist, other sources prove him wrong about the skip from Diadora to Nike (in 1999). It is not certain whether Admiral already had a contract with the RBFA in 1980, but what's sure is that the team didn't play in Admiral shirts yet in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case we can't use this source to back up the 1991, need the other sources. Maybe also add a footnote to explain conflict in sources? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 87 ok
 * 126 ok
 * 133 ok
 * 192 Buddenberg : ok
 * 198 Sportflitsen: ok
 * Footnote I: "whose teams did not reach the semi-finals" needs a source
 * True, done. Kareldorado (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edwininlondon (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments I'm sorry, but I have to regretfully oppose for now. I have uncovered a lot of issues with the prose and grammar and the formatting and reliability of some refs is in question for me. Maybe it's best the article gets a copyedit and is re-nominated thereafter. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You introduce the UBSSA, without using their full name. I would use their full name and have the acronym after it.
 * "In 1910, Scottish former footballer..." I would change to former Scottish footballer
 * As mentioned above, you still have some Easter Egg links such as 1920. I would change these to represent what the reader is being linked. For instance 1920 -> 1920 Summer Olympics
 * "all-time-high second place at the World Football Elo Ratings." at is the wrong preposition, it should be in instead.
 * "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics..." comma after olympics
 * "Fully dressed in white, as the White Devils Belgium..." Comma after Devils
 * "cost Belgium the finals." this makes it sound like it stopped them from winning the World Cup. Reword it to say cost Belgium qualification to the finals.
 * "in the 1980 final..." link to the final and give the score of the match, narrow loss is not useful for the reader. How narrow? Seeing as this is the only major final, Belgium have reached, there should be a bit more detail as well. It's certainly more important, than three friendly tournaments in Morocco, Cyprus and Japan for example.
 * "World Cup final stages..." -> World Cup finals
 * "Managers Guy Thys, Paul Van Himst and Robert Waseige guided the Belgian team past the first round." this sentence is confusing. Were they all managers? I'm assuming they were the three managers during the period? Be a bit more explicit
 * "at the continental level..." -> at subsequent European Championships
 * "yet in 2002..." comma after 2002
 * "and made the World Cup..." change made to reached
 * "These players used mostly defensive skills next to a strong midfield." this needs citing
 * "After a second stint of Georges Leekens as national manager..." -> After Georges Leekens' second stint as manager
 * "Under him the team's performance improved..." -> Following his appointment, the team's performances improved, with some...
 * comma before ref 89
 * "the venue was christened Jubilee Stadium..." the venue was christened the Jubilee Stadium
 * "named for the late..." -> named after the late
 * "As 59 per cent of the Belgians..."
 * "have been purchasing broadcasting..." -> have purchased broadcasting
 * "During the 2014 World Cup qualifiers..." comma after qualifiers
 * "In June 2013..." comma after 2013
 * "In 2010 a home Euro 2012 qualifier was given the theme of respect for diversity..." change to A home Euro 2012 qualifier was given the theme of respect for diversity in 2012. This is to avoid it feel like you are listing points with sentences begin with In...
 * "European and world championships..." -> European Championships and World Cup
 * "The many players who appeared in foreign high-level football leagues and the promising results under Marc Wilmots..." -> The presence of Belgian players in top foreign leagues, such as the Premier League, and promising results under Marc Wilmots, increased fan's..."
 * inaugurational World Cup should be inaugural World Cup
 * "In the 1990 FIFA World Cup, Belgium dominated their second-round match against England by periods..." do you mean dominated periods of the match? This sentence also needs citing
 * "In 2014, Belgium beat all their group opponents with the smallest margin." What do you mean by the smallest margin? Be explicit
 * I don't see any use to having the World Cup record table collapsed, it should be on full view for readers.
 * Also, both of those table do not comply with MOS:DTT as far as I can see. They col and rowscopes adding to them.
 * "With four successful qualification campaigns out of 13..." MOS:NUM states that comparative quantities, should either be both in numerals or written out, not of each.
 * It's stated that Fernand Nisot was the youngest player to play for Belgium, yet neither source states this or gives his age when he first played. Likewise for the oldest player.
 * What makes eu-football.info a reliable source?
 * not very reassuring when ref 32 has the page number as ?
 * ref 66 has no accessdate
 * likewise ref 69
 * ref 163 needs an en dash

Closing comment -- while some of the points above re. expression are arguable, there are enough concerns raised at this late stage of proceedings that I think we need to call a halt and sort them out away from FAC; you can renominate after a minimum of two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.