Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F.C. Porto in international club football/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

F.C. Porto in international club football

 * Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A month has passed since the previous nomination was closed due to lack of consensus; in over six weeks, it had two reviewers and only one provided his support. Here's hoping that this second nomination can attract more feedback from the community. Thank you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment (Leaning Support) : Awesome article, but I have some questions & comments. Please reply the following... Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead: Is it possible to split the second paragraph in the lead? I made a "proposal edit" in the page.
 * 2) Structure: Why is there not a "See Also" section?
 * 3) Content: Wikimedia commons has content for FC Porto. There is a little tag you can add (check Peru national football team's external links section).
 * 4) References: Is Footballzz.com a reliable source? Are there no better sources we can use?
 * 5) Suggestion: It would be great if you could create a History of F.C. Porto article. This doesn't affect this review, but I think you have much potential to make a great article on that (based on your work here).
 * Hello. Thank you so much for your constructive comments. Here are my replies:
 * I analysed your lead edit proposal, but I feel it kind of broke the more chronological flow of the prose. Therefore, I reverted to the previous version but I divided the paragraph in two as you requested.
 * I didn't feel it was necessary to have one. Do you have any related content link suggestions that are not already in the article?
 * Added the Commons content tag.
 * I'm not sure how reliable one can consider it, but I could not find anywhere else a table with the overall stats for each possible international official competition that Porto has ever played. Sadly, a great club like Porto lacks a proper history and statistics section on their own website. At best, I could leave only the UEFA source which lists per-season stats, but it does not include Fairs Cup and Intercontinental Cup participation stats.
 * An overall history article would be top, indeed, but also an herculean task that I'm not undertaking, at least in the near future. But I appreciate your suggestion. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a "see also" section to the article. Readers of your article are likely interested in reading about how other European clubs do on international competitions (particularly the other top Portuguese teams).
 * Since you are using Fotballzz.com for uncontroversial statistics that other sources are unlikely to cover, I think it should be accepted for the time being. Better sources may be available in the future, but there is no reason to deny the current FA quality of the work over that one source.
 * Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thought, but an issue rises here: why only those clubs? I agree with the other two top Portuguese clubs, but why only those foreign clubs? The best would be a link to Category:Football clubs in European football, which includes every European club with a similar page but it appears it's not usual or advisable to place links to category pages in see also sections. Regardless of this, thank you for your support! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – I reviewed the article at the first FAC, and don't have much to add this time around. One thing I noticed was the presence of two references in the lead, with information not present in the body of the article. In general, information in the lead should also appear in the body as the lead summarizes the rest of the article. I'd recommend adding the facts about the other major Portuguese teams and Porto winning the two competitions in their first appearance later in the article. Also, the reference Marshal pointed out doesn't strike me as reliable either. Otherwise, I like the article and would be inclined to support it. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Added those two situations in their respective section in the article's body. Concerning the reference, I refer you to the reply I provided to MarshalN20, just above. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The mention of the other Portuguese clubs' titles isn't cited in the body. Can the reference you had in the lead be placed here? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But I did that (see here). Or are you talking about sourcing? Sorry, maybe I did not understand your point... Parutakupiu (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding a reference is what I meant. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, added references for the European titles of Porto's rivals and another one stating that, until 1987, Porto were the only "big three" without international titles.Parutakupiu (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – I'm satisfied with the reference you provided, and accept that the other citation I mentioned is probably the best that can be found, although I'm still not thrilled with it. On balance, I think the article meets the FA standards. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - probably a general one that applies to football articles in general - in the collapsible match boxes there are bare URLs for the reports field. Keith D (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The template is made to add links as bare URLs and, as you mentioned, it's a common thing in football-related articles. If you think it's truly important, I can try to format it into a citation template, somehow. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have resorted to adding a ref next to the report link to give a full cite for this. May be others have ideas how to get round this? Keith D (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the report links and in turn added ref templates next to the venues. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks that addresses my comment. The location of the ref seems odd but I can live with that. Keith D (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the ref tags back to the first column, just after the competition name. I previously placed them after each final venue because there the tags did not disrupt the relative position of the data value within the collapsible box, but now I understand this does not happen with higher screen resolution. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – I am OK with the change made. Keith D (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments – This is an impressive entry on Porto's European history. While I have no qualms about its comprehensiveness after a quick read, I am a tad concerned about the sourcing of the article and certain elements of prose.
 * "Their opponents were Celtic, who had eliminated Porto's city rivals Boavista in the other semi-final to advance to their first European final since 1970.", the source does not confirm the bit in bold.
 * "This was Mourinho's last match for Porto; a week later, he was presented as Chelsea's new manager", again the source is just a collection of Mourinho quotes after his first press conference. Instead you should cite the this article.
 * Source to confirm "Hired during the pre-season, Dutch coach Co Adriaanse..."?
 * "A two-goal draw in Manchester", a two-all draw perhaps?
 * "The 2009–10 UEFA Champions League edition", not sure this is the correct word.
 * "He took his technical team to London, except assistant coach Vítor Pereira, who agreed to become the new Porto head coach", the source does not confirm that AVB took his staff with him, rather Pereira became the new manager.
 * For the matches listed below, what do the green and red backgounds signify? I know this is obvious to a football editor like myself, but it should cater also to the oblivious. Moreover, Porto drew with Once Caldas, so shouldn't the background be yellow? Or does it take into account extra time and penalties? Make this clear somewhere.
 * Although this isn't a requirement, it would be nice if there were direct quotes from the previous managers/players to bring the article alive, instead of it being a full-on narrative. See the Liverpool article for subtle ways to incorporate this, if you decide to do so. - Lemonade51 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, Lemonade51. I made all the changes you requested, with special relevance to the ones demanding a more adequate citation sourcing. Regarding the use of direct quotes, I used them sparingly in the second History sub-section and more in the quote parameter of a few citation tags (which you can see in the references section). I can see if I can find testimonies from other relevant participants. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- noticed a few paragraphs don't end with citations, which they should at FA-level; pls review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that. I've added the citations. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Image review: Images all have appropriate free licenses and aren't lacking any necessary details.
 * Source review:
 * Are you sure you have the right ISBN for Almanaque do FC Porto 1893–2011? I can't find the book using that number.
 * It's the correct ISBN, as displayed on the book cover and on this or this bookstore. In fact, I also don't know what's happening but it does seem that the book is no longer recognized or found through this ISBN. What should be done in this case? Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, what is the point in listing acronyms for Union of European Football Associations, Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, etc. when you never actually use the acronym to shorten the name? It's just visual noise in the Citations section. It would make more sense to write "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)" on first use and thereafter refer to it as only "RSSSF".
 * True, it was pointless. Just left the first spelled-out instances of publishers and then used the acronyms in the following appearances. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose spot-check:
 * "The expansion of the European Cup to include champions from other countries" Countries other than... who?
 * Well, since I cannot find reliable sources to confirm the expansion and which countries entered the competition for the first time in that year, I rewrote that part. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "but fell in the next round before 1860 Munich" The "fell before" is awkward English. "Fell to" is standard.
 * Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Winning an "aggregate victory" or "losing on aggregate" is jargon that needs linking or explanation.
 * Linked "aggregate" (to Playoff format) in its first appearance. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "having squandered a 4–2 aggregate lead during the second leg" No clue what this means.
 * Rephrased. Hope it's clearer now. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Reactions to the draw predicted an easy task for the English team" What draw?
 * Second round draw. Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Two goals from Fernando Gomes granted a 2–1 home win, but the away goal proved crucial to Real" What is "the away goal"?
 * A link explaining that was given just after, but I rephrased that part to point the reader directly to the explanatory link. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds more like sports journalism than an encyclopedia article: "this win meant that Porto were no longer the only "Big Three" club in Portugal without international silverware."
 * I'd prefer to keep that piece of information. Any suggestion on how to make it read less journalistic? Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "who had led Leiria to their best ever league finish" Hypenate "best-ever"
 * Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't find the writing to be particularly accessible. A lot of knowledge is presumed—jargon is not always linked or explained. Additionally, there are many places where you write as if the reader has already read the linked sources and is now reading your summary (see for example the "reactions to the draw" and "the away goal" comments above). I think this could benefit from a run-through by an unfamiliar person to create a task list of jargon and unclear summary of sources. I'm sure this article is a very enjoyable read to a European football fan, but I was too often lost to enjoy it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, Laser_brain. I admit that flaw of mine, as it's such a common topic for an average European football enthusiast like myself. It gets easy to forget that not everyone understands the specifics of football and its rules and technicalities. I will attempt to trace and simplify other examples of such jargon that may have been overlooked. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Laser_brain, I have made another copy-edit run-through in an attempt to weed out jargon language. If you wish, please review my changes to assess if I was successful. Thank you. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The writing looks much improved and more accessible. I considered my comments addressed. Thanks! -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I was able to solve such a relevant issue. Thank you for pointing it out. Cheers, Parutakupiu (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.