Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatia national football team/archive5


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008.

Croatia national football team

 * Nominator(s): Domiy 
 * previous FAC (02:42, 16 October 2008)

The language has been fixed up as I have had time to go through a lengthy peer review process as recommended here previously. Since no other problems were presented in the previous FAC, one could possibly conclude that this article meets all the criteria. So here goes. Domiy (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Source check - This will do until Ealdgyth comes back. Some of these might well be fine, but I just don't know much about Croatia-related sites. It's better to ask and get an answer. Note that I didn't do a strong check of the Croatian-language sources, as I don't know the language. 66.238.221.0 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes The World Game (references 4 and 66) a reliable source? This is a blog, and was questioned during the previous FACs.
 * Reference 16 (ABOUT FIFA) is in all capital letters, which is not preferred. It should be changed to About FIFA. The abbreviation in caps is fine.
 * Is Croatian World Network (reference 19) a news company? Not familiar with it. That doesn't mean it's a bad source; I'd just like to know more about it. Same with Croatian Times (ref 90).
 * Reference 25 (WORLD CUP '98; Croatia and its Fortunate Sons) is another all caps, and should be World Cup '98; Croatia and its Fortunate Sons.
 * Little tip on reference 53: Sports Illustrated, a magazine, is really not the publisher. Instead, it's CNN Sports Illustrated.
 * Caps (FEAR FACTOR) should be removed in ref 62. There are a couple of other caps in later references that can also be removed.
 * Is Panstadia (ref 96) a published magazine? Is so, place the publisher in italics.
 * What makes Javno a reliable source?
 * Reference 106 (Croatia to receive penalty for 'human swastika') is from a newsgroup. A better source is needed here; an Associated Press story should be easily found elsewhere.
 * What makes OneWorld South East Europe (ref 117) a reliable source?
 * Why is euFootball.uk (ref 124) reliable?
 * Why is the Ana Rukavina Foundation reliable? It's not the charity mentioned in the text.
 * Does Croatian language need to be linked with each language indicator? It might be better to just have the tag with no link; we're trying to cut down on repetitive links.
 * That was me. Forgot to log in. :-(  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you Giants, I agree its better to be given a chance to answer some concerns rather than just people making assumptions. I will address the points in your order:


 * The World Game is an official website affiliated with SBS, a primary sports broadcaster in Australia. It is similar to the relationship between SkySports.com and the SkySports channel (in England). I don't see how it is a blog, reference 4 is a team run-through and reference 66 is an official published newstory. However, please note that either way, both these references aren't exactly even needed. They are secondary references which I included merely to offer more of an understanding about the team and the subjected statement. They can easily be removed and will be if it is arguably reached that the sources are unreliable.
 * Caps removed.
 * Croatiantimes is as ordinary as any other website. It appears that they cover all Croatia-related articles and stories and are run based on other references and affiliations (see this page). They are indeed a news company. Croatian World Network is run by Nenad Bach who is a recognized author in varied continents of the world. Furthermore, the story from that website is a direct translation of a Croatian version found here, as explained at the end of the story. The Croatian source used by the author in that story comes from the official website of the Croatian Football Federation, so it can be deemed reliable. I looked through both stories myself and the translation is pretty much spot on, just to clear that up :).
 * Caps removed.
 * Thanks! I have updated the publisher information to 'CNN Sports Illustrated'.
 * Caps removed.
 * Yes Panstadia is a magazine type source. It has been placed in italics. Forgot about that one.
 * I provided fair links in the previous FAC that directed towards Javno being a reliable source. They are run by a team of sanctioned editors in Croatia and the news service operates in both Croatian and English. Most people in Croatia relate immediately to Javno as a news service. Not always a primary source of news, but they get the point across. Their Terms of Use and site information clear all that up. See this and this too. They run in association with their own publishers and abide by correct copyright regulations.
 * If you have concerns over that news story from the Associated Press as it is from a newsgroup, then this reference is also another secondary one, meaning it is not a primarily needed source of inclusion. Nonetheless, it can be replaced with this mirrored story from the Jerusalem Post, which also credits the story coming from The Associated Press. The problem is that I am unable to find the actual story coming directly from the Associated Press. Hope that's not too much of a problem; this reference can be easily removed (or possibly replaced as well) without major problems. I apologies for including some sources which aren't exactly 100% necessary, but they can never be a problem as they only offer more insight into the subject and provide further research opportunity and choices.
 * Jerusalem Post is fine.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference from OneWorld South East Europe (ref 117) has now been replaced with a direct story from BBC News, found here.
 * If you believe that a source is required to prove HRT is Croatia's primary broadcast station and that the current source is unreliable, I am happy to replace this source as I have now done so with two differing sources. I have gone ahead and put in =126&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1793&tx_ttnews[backPid]=185&cHash=4d25942a86 this story] as a reference. Its not an official news story, but it proves that the station is Croatia's primary broadcaster judging by the informing memo released by the official organizers of the foreign satellite channel. I am also able to put in this reference as well, but I dont think Broadcastbuyer online is really a reliable source either.
 * Is it really possible to doubt a charity organisation website as an unreliable source? If the charity organisation says that proceeds will be donated to a charity, then they can't really say this on a false basis as that would have aroused legal issues by now. Once again, if a consensus is reached on this source being unreliable, then I will gladly remove it and the associated media statement.
 * I have removed the link to Croatian language in each Croatian reference. Domiy (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Most of the images appear to be fine. I suggest you email whatever permission has been granted for Image:Croatian first team.jpg to the Wikipedia Foundation at permissions@wikipedia.org and get an OTRS ticket for this image. If you have access to the email Roberta F (roberta.f@email.t-com.hr) or Nikša Martinac sent you, forward that with a copy of the image to the permissions department. There are two names of copyright holders in two templates for the image as well. Please make clear who owns the copyright. Also, in the description, it claims the photo was taken "decades ago", but on the date it gives the exact date. Can you make that date exact in both lines, please?
 * Image:Cro-Ger 2-0.jpg needs a date.
 * Please include an template for Image:FranjoTudman.JPG. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pending an OTRS ticket for Image:Croatian first team.jpg, the images check out fine. You may have to nudge someone to give you a ticket number on that. I would suggest User:Howcheng, since he is the only user I know who has OTRS email access. There are probably a few others, but...without User:Elcobbola, I don't know who they are. --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review revisited: First, I personally apologize for retracting what I posted before. However, I am a novice at checking images at FAC. I know some but not all, and there are some issues about the images in the article that were pointed out to me. For that reason, and because this article should be the strongest in text and visuals possible, I must present a new list of issues to face with the images.
 * Image:Croatian first team.jpg: I have been informed that no email has been sent to permissions@wikipedia.org. I suggest locating the holder of the copyright and obtaining permission with the following statement: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. I have received permission for a dozen or so images in various articles using this and some very nice emails I have sent to various people.
 * If you don't have access to the copyright holder and you must claim Fair Use as historical documentation, per NFCC #8 the image must impact the article in some way. As in, the image should be so famous that it affected the events in the article the image needs to help the reader's understanding of the material signficantly. If that cannot be proven and you have no idea who the copyright holder is, you may have to consider removing the image from the article.
 * Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png the licensing for this image is incorrect. It has an author, Nuno Tavares, who seems different from the uploader, User:Squadoosh. You will have to contact User:Squadoosh to ask where they obtained this image, who Nuno Tavares is. If they are in fact the same person, and Squadoosh/Tuvares created it, is the correct licensing, and Squadoosh should change it. If you have no luck contacting either of these people, you should consider creating one just like it and releasing it to public domain yourself.
 * Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg - The source is questionable. After some points became quite obvious after they were shown to me, I now doubt the site owns the copyrights to these images. You can try some of these images Maksimir Stadium at the Commons. And I searched on Flickr for the the same stadium, and there appear to be some images that individuals have uploaded. The best thing to do would be to contact the person who has the image you like (and to cover your bases, contact a few more), ask them if they took the image and own the copyright, and then agree to the release: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Mail that into permissions@wikipedia.org with the image attached.
 * 1) Per my initial oversights, I may have to amend these statements to clarify. I apologize for the confusion. I am learning as I go. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dabs, the dab finder in the tool box identifies several dab links that need repair. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Moni3 and Sandy!. I have fixed up the images and updated their pages, now including all required information (dates etc). The OTRS ticket is pending, there are a few users who edit this article and they are the pro's at the image tags etc. I'll contact them to help with this OTRS ticket inclusion, as I am not too familiar with this process. Alas, it will be done when they come back shortly. Domiy (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposing, based on the number of problems I uncovered just in the Lead section. If I have this many problems with the first four paragraphs, I can't believe that the article is Featured quality. Sorry.
 * Oppose by User:Dweller

Grammar and other language issues:
 * I'm puzzled by why the article is called "Croatia national..." and the article opens with "Croatian national...". Looks inconsistent.
 * Decide whether the team is singular or plural and stick to it. Either is fine, but a mix is not. Here you have both in one sentence: "Although they were authorized as an affiliate of FIFA in this earlier period, Croatia remained a constituent federal republic of Yugoslavia and was therefore unable to participate separately at the competitive level.". (my bold) Other examples: "Croatia has achieved several...", "Croatia is the only team"
 * "every edition of the World Cup" not sure if this is good American English, but doesn't work for my English English ear (eye!). Sentence works fine with the words "edition of the" simply removed. But there's tautology following the semicolon. In all, I suggest rewording to: "Since the team became eligible to participate in international competition, they have qualified for every World Cup and have missed only major event: UEFA Euro 2000."
 * "they have also played scheduled home fixtures" what does "scheduled" add?
 * "They were previously undefeated in competitive matches on home soil" delete "previously"
 * "Croatia has achieved several noteworthy victories throughout major tournaments, defeating opposition within the top-five of the FIFA World Rankings." Reword to "Croatia have achieved several noteworthy victories in major tournaments, defeating opposition ranked in the top five of the FIFA World Rankings."
 * "accommodate the award" win the award? take the award? not accommodate
 * " scrutiny towards" should read "scrutiny of"

Accuracy:
 * UEFA is not "the highest authorities of global football"
 * England were not top-five opposition at the time and pedantically the wins weren't in a major tournament
 * "Their FIFA World Ranking has been among the most volatile throughout history, ranging from third in 1998 to 125th in 1994." First, chronologically, that's the wrong order. Second, that's not volatility - volatile means it goes up and down, yo-yoing. Croatia zoomed up and havent plummetted back down. Did the RS call it "volatile"? I looked at the sources and can't see the word - nor can I see the sourcing of the assertion of being "among the most volatile throughout history" even if the word volatile is replaced.

POV issues:
 * "puppet states" comes across as POV - is it a quote from the source (currently no. 3)?

Sorry, because this is a very good article, but it's not FA quality yet. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments Dweller!. I am a little a negative towards your points for opposition. Please be aware that opposing an article is a big issue, so the system shouldn't be abused. I've noticed that you have complained about very small issues, ones which can also be scraped off as incorrect even. Please consider my points and think about your vote, hence as I said above in accordance with Giants2008, its much more accurate and sensible to ask questions, get an answer and THEN make your decision. This process seems to have already been proved as working well based on the fact that you have just opposed on small issues which can easily be resolved or shredded away. I would like to remind everyone that this article has already been through numerous peer reviewers, both officially and unofficially, and all of the major points in the article were fixed up in that process.


 * The same thing happens on other pages, not just football national team ones. This just helps with disambiguation issues, as the user won't have to be completely accurate when searching the page. In essence, both 'Croatia' and 'Croatian' are correct. I have gone ahead and made it the same as the article title in any case.
 * Thanks --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When there is a mix of such, it is because the sentence can and sometimes does rotate from referring to the Croatian team to the actual Croatian republic.
 * Hmm. While that's the case in the first example I gave, it's not in the second and third examples. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your next point is a clear POV. I appreciate your help, and I am fixing up all your raised issues, but if you really wanted to contribute some points based on your own language preference then you should have participated in the peer review and made some additional adjustements to the page yourslelf instead of just telling people they are wrong simply because an article does not meet your own personal language preference. If this were the an eligible point, then it would be impossible for any article to satisfy the criteria because no piece of writing could possibly satisfy numerous different English-language style preferences. The sentence you just pointed out is one of many which was covered in the peer review. Semicolons are used often throughout this article, it makes it much easier to connect each sentence and is much more professional.
 * POV? What POV? I'm asking if it works in American English, and then made a suggestion that would eradicate the issue either way. However, a tautology is a problem regardless of American or English English. Incidentally, use of plural for the team is English English, so if you decide the article is in American English, you'll need to make the team singular. Your choice, but the article must be consistent. If the Peer reviewers missed it, I'm terribly sorry for you, but that doesn't give you carte blanche for the article to pass FAC. Furthemore, please don't tell FAC reviewers they should have participated in the Peer Review. It's a pointless comment and can do nothing other than irritate. I have no objections to semicolons, just poor use of English, such as tautologies (and mixed use of regional English). --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a small point like this is another one based on possible preference. The word 'scheduled' means that it is a planned and organized home match. Of course, the sentence does still work fine without that word, but this is another infinite issue; every article on WP has a few sentences with unnecessary words included. It holds its own advantages without really downgrading the article. Again, if you had problems with such a minor issue, you can easily go ahead and edit the page in a minor matter yourself or participate in the peer review, bringing them up as a means of opposing isn't really fair or acceptable.
 * Isn't every single match played by Croatia "scheduled"? They don't just turn up for training and find that an international side has mysteriously arrived for a game without anyone knowing. yes, it's a small point, but I'm arguing that the Lead (just four parags) is littered with small points which bring the quality down below FA standard. WP:WIAFA demands "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Redundant words that seem to suggest implications that don't exist bring the article's quality down. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another minor issue which has been fixed up.
 * Great --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This recommendation is incorrect. The article is talking about the team as a whole, not a single personal squad which achieved the results. Therefore, 'has' is much more accurate and appropriate. This is not an article on the current line-up of the squad, it is an article of the entire team itself throughout history.
 * The "has" v "have" aspect is just one of the fixes in the sentences, but as we're discussing it, you misunderstand: it's not a present/past tense issue, but a singular/plural, and part of making consistent the English English plural usage for the team that you've chosen. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor issue been fixed up.
 * Excellent. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Either 'of' or 'towards' is perfectly fine. This is another point you have pulled out based on personal preference. Remember the old saying; if it is not broke, then don't fix it.
 * Not a personal preference, but correct usage. You don't scrutinise toward something, you scrutinise it. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FIFA and UEFA are the highest authorities of Croatia's global footballing participation, as later explained in the Hierarchy section of the article. Additionally, UEFA control all European football, and Europe is factually one of the largest and most football-active continents in the world. Therefore, because UEFA hold a high seat in the control over football, especially in Croatia's case, they are, along with FIFA, the highest authorities of global football.
 * I understand all of the above. Please re-read my comment. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Qualifying for a major tournament is at many times still mentioned as a major tournament. The major tournament itself is commonly called 'the finals of the tournament' or something similar. Every nation's major tournament campaign includes their qualifying process as well. Additionally, the sentence doesn't really need to contain every team in the top-five. I said Croatia defeated opposition within the top-five of the World Rankings and then gave some examples. I put England as the last example to give the idea that the stipulation doesn't really have to apply to them as well. They certainly have been in the top-five of the rankings before, and prior to their major downfall, they were ranked fairly higher.
 * You incorrectly imply that England were a top five club. This is misleading and must be addressed. And I think you'll find you're in a minority on whether qualifying tournaments are major tournaments, but that's the lesser issue here. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP never has to rely on a source to write an entire article. Sources are used as a means of delivering communication and proving they are correct. The article doesn't have to follow the exact words of the source, otherwise it could be put down for copyright. I know what volatile means, and you pretty much repeated my understanding definition of the word. Yes, it means that it goes up and down, just like Croatia's FIFA World Ranking. The sources provided clearly explain that Croatia were ranked 125th in 1994, went up to 3rd in 1998, and since then have had quite a ride. This information is still in the sources provided; it says that they were previously ranked around 12th and experienced a later downfall when they were ranked around 14th onwards, until finally coming back as high as 6th a few months ago, and so on. Additionally, they were ranked 5th not so long ago as well, and now they are back down to 7th. I hope I'm getting my point across about how it is more appropriate to ask questions or think more thoroughly before you act. If this is not volatile to you, then nothing possibly can be. No that word is not in any of the sources, that doesn't mean it cannot be included. WP relies on editors to write their own work in accordance with factual information found in sources.
 * I refer you to WP:NPOV and to WP:PEACOCK and to WP:WIAFA --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that you don't really know the actual meaning of the word "puppet state". There is an article on WP named Puppet state, I suggest you take a look at it as it itself is well referenced. The meaning of puppet state can also be found here which does coincide with what ref number 3 says - "During World War II, Germany and Italy founded the NDH (Independent State of Croatia)" - this means it was a puppet state as Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, but temporarily controlled by another unofficial power. The same goes for the Banovina of Croatia. This is in no way POV, but rather factually correct information. Domiy (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ''That's your opinion. It's a breach of WP:OR and WP:POV unless you're quoting a reliable source. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the reply. I hope you're not accusing me of "abusing the system" - I'm a pretty experienced FAC contributor, both as reviewer and nominator. You should know that the system is not a vote, nor is it even a !vote. Small issues, if they proliferate in a small space constitute a large issue, which is why I took the trouble to spell out in detail what I found. However, if I have erred on any, I'm always happy to reconsider. However, I would point out that if reviewers at FAC find significant problems, it's because peer review or copyediting has missed them. That happens all the time; it's annoying, but that's life.


 * I'll look through your detailed reply and respond asap. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded to all your responses. My objection to this nomination stands, as this article does not conform to WP:WIAFA. I'm sorry that the other reviewers didn't do a better job; perhaps they were put off by aggressive / incorrect responses to suggested improvements? --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - After my partial source review, here are some comments on other aspects of the article. Also left a note above.
 * In most articles that I've seen here, footnotes go before the references. I like the idea of having a separate section for footnotes, though.
 * Pre-independence: "During this time, Croatian sides were temporarily formed and competed seperately in unofficial matches, primarily due to unstable national borders which were controlled under a De jure government...". I'm pretty sure that De should be de-capitalized.
 * Kranjcar and Bilic's revival: "Josip Simunic was mistakenly issued three yellow card warnings by Graham Poll, making him the only player to receive three bookings in a single match." Is he the only player in football history, or just in the World Cup? You might want to clarify this.
 * Stadium: Capitalize stadium in the photo caption to match the other uses of Stadium in the section.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks Giants! I have used the story from the Jerusalem Post instead of the previous news group one, and went through and clarified all these other small things. Additionally, I went through the lead section and made sure the team is constantly referred to as 'it' rather than 'they'. Domiy (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The sheer number of errors in the use of the English language surprises me, and must be corrected for this to reach FA. Let me, purely by way of example, go through the first couple of paragraphs: First paragraph: "team supremacy"  excuse me, what is that?
 * "by 1993" Why not say the year the team became a UEFA and FIFA member?
 * "the national team was previously sanctioned" Oh?  What penalty did they get?
 * "Although the team was authorized" Perhaps "recognized" is meant?
 * "monarchy power" excuse me? What does that mean?

Second parapraph: Just looking down through the article, I see quite a few similar odd usages and mistakes. I would suggest going through the article carefully. These are small points, admittedly, but a FA is supposed to have outstanding, compelling prose. I think we are still a long way from that with this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "it's first appearance" grammar error.
 * "third-place" Why the hyphen? And why is the no doubt noteworthy third place finish mentioned twice in the lede?

Wehwalt, if you do not know the definition of some words used in an article, it does not mean they are incorrect. Again, no article is supposed to cater for every tiny specific need; this is impossible. FAC prose is supposed to be professional, if you don't understand what a word means, then use a dictionary.


 * Team Supremacy - here.
 * I could say both years, but I have chosen not to do so in the lead. The first few paragraphs clearly acknowledge that the team was formed in 1990 and was a fully certified member of both confederations by 1993, that leaves only a possible space of three years, so anyone can easily find out that they were obviously acknowledged between these three years. This information is thoroughly mentioned later in the article anyway. While it would be more than appropriate to include this information, it does not in any way mean it is incorrect not to do so.
 * They got no 'penalty'. The definition of "sanctioned" is here. While I see how it is possible you got the wrong idea of the word (because it has two different usages and possible meanings), that still doesn't make it incorrect. Sanctioned means that the team was authorized and made 'eligible' or 'official', as opposed to being an unauthorized side.
 * Either word is fine, again it doesn't mean that the current usage in any way incorrect.
 * Monarchy power - here. It means that the nation was temporarily, officially or unofficially, ruled by a single person or affiliated government. During the time of Yugoslavia, this was the case with two temporary puppet states which were formed under a Croatian name, Independent State of Croatia and Banovina of Croatia. Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, just temporarily separated under its own government ruling from Ante Pavelic and others. Also, please note that a wikilink is provided to the meaning of "monarchy". You should do some further reading before you ask accusing and opposing questions like this.

And thank you for your other grammar issues. Domiy (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I know what sanctioned means; my comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I know what supremacy and monarchy mean, thank you very much, I did quite well on my college entrance exams back in the Stone Age, the point is, that "team supremacy" and "monarchy power" do not make sense as English phrases.  This is merely symptomatic, the article is simply strewn with such usages, and it is NOT the job of a FAC reviewer to do the dirty work for the nominator by pointing out every one, clean it up yourself please if you'd like to see this as a FA.  And please remember that English is a subtle language, the many words we have mean that all words with identical meanings do not carry identical connotations, and there are a lot of jarring word usages in the article, a few of which I have pointed out.  The prose is not up to FA standards; my oppose stands for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second comment I should also add that, speaking as someone who has gone through four FAC's as an editor, with each being successful, that you maximize your chance of getting your article through if you work with reviewers in a friendly and collegial way. Everyone has their own wikistyle, I merely offer a suggestion that the nominator consider well his/her tone in dealing with reviewers.  Reviewers want to see FAs, but they want to keep standards up, and they want the nominator to accept their comments in good heart.  Being a FAC reviewer is a thankless task, and it is something I only dabble in, and I have great respect for those who have made it their wikitask to review most or all articles, especially considering the abuse they take from some editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The recent copyedits are a good start, but more is needed. Substantively, I'm concerned by footnote 24, which only goes to show Croatia's Independence Day and says nothing about the status of the team. I'd like to see some evidence that the team in question sprang into being Croatia's national team when it declared independence. Without official recognition from the nation, or FIFA or UEFA, I don't see why this would be so. Arguably, another organization could have started a team and (through whatever means, including bribery) had its team recognized as official. Additionally, the statement that Croatia could not play matches because FIFA still recognized Yugoslavia as reprsenting Croatian territory needs a citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you once again for your concern. However, in a democratic matter, I must point out that such is not necessary at all. WP requires citations/references for challenged statements only, that is statements which can easily be declared incorrect in a sensible manner. I assume you don't fully understand the process and regulations of FIFA and football representation at national level. I will tell you from an experienced point of view, these statements are easily correct without direct references. There is no way FIFA would ever allow a national team to play officially in competitive matches if they were not part of an officially recognised republic. This is an easily recognised fact. There are sufficient references which already explain how the team was formed. The same goes for the Yugoslavian statement. There is absolutely no way FIFA would recognise Croatia as a fully certified national team while they were a part of Yugoslavia. Just think about the complication this would cause. They were still the same country, hence a national team has to represent a separate national republic; this would be impossible by common logic. These are already recognised facts. Domiy (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not from this perspective. Since FIFA didn't recognize the side as Croatia's official side until 1992, its status in October 1991 needs establishing.  Keep in mind also that Croatia was not internationally recognized at that point.  You address this nowhere in your response.  And as for your FIFA point, you yourself say in the article that there were temporary "national" sides when Croatia was occupied by the Axis, though still legally part of Yugoslavia.  Please keep in mind that the average reader is not going to "fully understand the process and regulations of FIFA and football representation at national level" and is going to want to see that kind of statement supported by references, not just take your word for it.  It is a bit of a circle, really, Croatia now regards its independence as October 8, 1991, but few if any countries recognized it at that point, and certainly Yugoslavia regarded it as part of its sovereign territory.  That impacts your "common logic" point, if you think about it, arguably a Croat player could have chosen which side, Croat or Yugoslav, to play for.  "Just think about the complication this would cause."  I think references are needed here.  You may also want to separate out the pre-Independence Day activities into its own subsection.
 * Please read my initial point. I am saying this in the most friendly manner, you are incorrect. And to tell you the truth, the reason I am not putting in references here is because such doesn't exist. Notice how well referenced the article currently is, I went though a great deal of effort finding all the sources. I have had no luck finding a source which directly states what you are asking; this certainly doesn't mean the statement is incorrect. It is indeed correct, so much so that nobody has even bothered to produce an article or statement about it. I have looked extensively in many source possibilities, including magazines and historic documents. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement that the team which (according to you) came together spontaneously for the love of the game automatically became THE OFFICIAL Croatian national team upon an initially unrecognized declaration of independence is far from obvious. A neutral editor has told you this.  There are serious WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems here.  If you can't verify it, even if you know it to be true, take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the crying shame about this article is that the editors use the passive voice to cover over things that might be very interesting for the reader. I'd really be interested in hearing more about how it came to be that a team, of whatever status, was established in 1990, even while the Yugoslav team was (with Croatian players) enjoying considerable success, and about the efforts to get FIFA and UEFA to recognize the football federation, as well as about the pressures on the players to either stay with the Yugoslav team or jump to the new Croatian side.  Did any stay with Yugoslavia through the end of the Euro '92 campaign?  Yet in the article, the passive voice is way overused.  The team just forms out of the blue, with none of the effort it took to do these things detailed.  While I suspect there is some desire to adhere to Croatian political correctness (it is certainly visible in some of the other articles about Croatian/Yugoslavian football), this article could be very compelling if it gave more information about what was needed to carry on a football program in the time of the Balkans War.  The same goes for the teams of the WWII era puppet states.  How did these teams get organized?  What was the purpose in having them play "international" friendlies?  What was FIFA doing in recognizing them (not that FIFA had much power in 1941, I don't think England was even a member yet)?  Did FIFA subsequently take away their status?  Why were there Croatian teams in the 1950s?  To say that they existed, without giving some information about why they were there, cheats the reader and raises comprehensiveness concerns.
 * Again, its good that you have such a concern and good feedback to give, but you are expecting information which doesn't exist. I have 'left out' this information because it isn't existent. There were no "efforts" to get the team recognised by FIFA. It's not a difficult recognition to earn. The FIFA criteria is fairly simple, if you have an officially recognised republic with a sufficient amount of competing players and an organised football federation which is willing to abide by the rules of FIFA, then you pretty much qualify for recognition. All you need to do is apply and wait. There were no efforts prior to Croatia's independence because everybody (including the nation and team themselves) knew it was impossible for them to become a member since they were a part of Yugoslavia. So all they could do was wait until they met the criteria. This is just what they did. They waited until they were declared independent. Your point about player's choice and "pressure" is seemingly biased as well. To be fair, you aren't expected to really know this so I will tell you know, such pressure did not exist. All the Croatian players were very eager to represent Croatia. I'm fairly certain that a few of them even admitted that Croatia would be the only national team they would want to represent; so if the Croatian team didn't exist, they still wouldnt play for Yugoslavia. Please consider the fact that these two countries fought a war and already had a bad history behind them, why would any Croatian player want to represent the country they just fought in a difficult war? There was no pressure at all, they all jumped to the Croatian side almost immediately. The puppet state national teams were organised as a means of desire. A group of Croatian, managers and other organisers wanted to form a separate team. It's not hard to figure out why. Why do footballers play football? It's their passion and life. The same goes for this team. They wanted to play football because they were footballers. The teams were organised because it became difficult for some players to play regularly in the Yugoslavian teams, and mostly because (once again) they just wanted to be recognised separately from the opposing Yugoslavian republic. They played friendly matches at their own will; these matches were mainly self organised. Why? Because the team wanted to play football against an opponent. There is no real significance over why they played friendly matches. And yes, it is later mentioned that the team lost their recognition and were only temporarily a FIFA member. Their status was taken away because the puppet states were broken off and Yugoslavia came into full power again. There is also no significance as to why there was a Croatian team in the 1950s; if there were a significant meaning, it would be mentioned. However this is not the case. The team existed quite simply because it wanted to. The players wanted to play seperately, even if it was in only a few unofficial games. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you need to explain that with WP:RS. If it was an expression of defiance against Yugoslavia, it could be very interesting to the reader.  And I think you simplify too much, the membership of Croatia and other Balkan states in international organizations in the early 1990s was very contentious.  Kinda like this FAC.  My comprehensiveness concerns remain.  Things just don't happen spontaneously.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is still a host of odd usages (also found in your reply to me, and I urge you to seek a editor to help out who is a native English speaker) as well as MOS goofs like titling the section "Team Image" in all caps. Note that suggestions of ignorance re WP procedures or other areas of knowledge, as are common by the nominators both in this FAC and in the previous FACs, aren't going to advance this article towards FA.  Please also keep in mind that Sandy is a champion nitpicker, and she won't pass this article until it meets FA standards, no matter how many times you nominate this article or how many editors you irritate into going away.  Right now, it just isn't even close.  It is better than it was, but it is not FA standard.  I'm not even sure if it is GA standard, and am very tempted to ask for a reassessment if this article doesn't wind up passing here.
 * You are not automatically correct just because you point out some issues which are related to the WP guidelines. Please also note that this isn't a time to insult other people's work or other articles. This article passed GA because it meets the GA criteria, which is much more lenient than this FA criteria. You should also be more accurate in what you declare. Right now, it is easy to conclude that this article passes most of the FA criteria. It is sufficiently referenced, contains images, sticks to the point while not going into unnecessary detail (something which you wanted seeing as you want the article to include blatantly obvious and unnecessary information) and also has engaging language to some extent. Pointing out a few issues here and there (some of which have been proved wrong anyway) is not a sufficient ground for saying this article is not even close to the FA or GA criteria. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've failed FAC four times. Res ipsa loquitur.  As for GA, we may see if you can't salvage this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, what does Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png convey that words cannot?
 * It is a simple, quick and aesthetically pleasing conveyance of information regarding the Golden Generation of the Croatian squad. Naming every player in the squad at that time, and then going through to expand upon which position they played in and which formation was used is a waste of time and space, and goes into necessary detail. However, with the diagram/image, it is much easier and appropriate. Words cannot explain where each player was positioned on the pitch; it may be possible to concert this into prose, but it would be very long and unnecessary. It would also become pretty much impossible for someone who is not knowledged on football to understand. Hence the use of the image. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And why is this needed for a general article on the Croatian team?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the final analysis, this article has tremendous potential to tell a compelling story. It isn't doing that yet, it isn't even close, and to be blunt, the attitude of the nominators, and their unwillingness to make changes to satisfy legitimate concerns, is getting in the way and making this article the Harold Stassen of FAC (or maybe that's unfair to Roman Catholic Church).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, this article tells everything there is to tell. You would have had a lot of fun during the FAC and FARC of Scotland national football team; it seems that your points may have had some place there. Scotland is a much more historic and 'story-telling' team than Croatia. As I have already said, there is no story to tell on this article. Everything necessary is included; you are just asking for some additional facts which do not exist. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that taking a team from effectively nothing to the World Cup semifinals in eight years is a hell of a story. Scotland has more of a history, but not so dramatic.  If you told this one better, you'd have your FA.  My oppose stands on prose, comprehensiveness and image (both the ones I brought up and also Dweller's and those unresolved from prior FACs).  Please go back and reread my advice about how you should be working with reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you wish me to reconsider based on actual changes to the article, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I will likely be without internet access unless I find a cafe, until December 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think a reconsideration couldn't hurt; will save me time of nominating this again. A lot of changes have been made, however your 'story telling' desire remains an ongoing instability. There are many reasons for and against that approach, so it isn't really applicable just yet. Domiy (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I will be happy to reconsider when you change the article per my objections. You haven't even taken care of the image problems you promised Dweller that you would, let alone my concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.