Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FIFA World Rankings/archive1

FIFA World Rankings
I have been working on this  for quite a while, it is perfectly stable with the only major edits recently being updates on the rankings, and edits made in accordance with the articles peer review. It is thorough breakdown of the history of the rankings, how they work and their criticisms. When it was peer reviewed all of the issues that arose were tackled accordingly, and I think that now it is a very concise article on its subject. Philc TECI 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support Philc  TECI 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Neutral - While the current content of the article is commendable. I do ,not think is wise to have an article that contains clear breaches of copyright in its history, as a featured article. Jooler 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, are you opposing due to copyvio material in a previous version of the article, not the current one? If so its unactionable. Also, it says on WP:CV that "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." Oldelpaso 22:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also it is debatable wether the text was actually copyvio, because you're claiming that copyvio is copying the content of the text and not the actual words, whereas, I'm pretty sure you can't copyright the meaning of the text at all, only the wording. So based on this and Oldelpaso's comment's i'd like your opposition to be discounted. Philc  TECI 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Phil let's 100% clear about this. That point at least is NOT debatable. it was a clear breach of copyright, no question whatsoever. If you had submitted that as a dissertation or whatever at University (as your own work) you would have been done for plagiarism. I am talking about previous versions yes. The tag says "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch. An administrator will move your new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved". The question is though, is it wise to have copyright violations from an extremely litigious organization like FIFA in the history pages of a featured article, i.e. one that could appear on the front page? I'll withdraw my opposition and leave it for others to decide. Jooler 05:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, but here is not the place to discuss this, and as Oldelpaso said, the copyvio can remain unless the holder requests it be removed from the history, but the point at hand is the current article. Philc  TECI 09:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm afraid that's not the way copyright works. Practically, FIFA is unlikely to object if the problem has been fixed.  But, legally, it was simply wrong.  If this is made into an FA, I hope it would be kept off the front page. If not for this issue, I'd be Neutral, since the listiness bothers me. Sam
 * Why has this article been branded as a result of sometihng that was in a past revision. I'm sorry but it seems to be idiocy to me, can someone explain to me, how a past revision effects the value of the current content of the article, if it really matters to some one we can have it deleted from the history. Philc  TECI 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to Ignore that Objection, on the grounds that (quote rules to objection) "If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.", thats right isn't it? Philc  TECI 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * commentTo be very clear, I have no other grounds than the copyright violation; the article itself, as it stands now, is fine and I am neutral as to it. I have explained to Philc why I view it as an ongoing problem, and will leave to others the task of determining how seriously they want to take the issue.  Sam 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should be taking this to The Wikimedia Foundation or to WP:AN if you are very concerned about the issue. Also wish to politely reiterate that featured articles do not necessarily mean they will be main page candidates. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think the copyvio situation is a problem. Like Oldelpaso said, if it becomes a problem (which I doubt it will be), it will be removed; that's what the policy is there for. --DanielNuyu 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. A fantastic article. --DanielNuyu 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Way too listy, this would be a better candidate for WP:FLC. — Wackymacs 10:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But it is not a list, FLC is for lists, i.e. articles that start with the words "List of", this article doesn't and is not a list, it is mainly prose, the only bullet points used are to explain mathematical procedure, which quite honestly I think would be illogical to have as prose. Philc  TECI 11:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The tables are counted as lists too, as most Featured lists are in table form. I just think this article fits FLC more than FAC. — Wackymacs 12:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But the article is not a list, while lists are used to represent mathematical data, that doen't make it a list. Philc  TECI 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It may not be called a list, but it has lots of lists in it, both in bullet and table form. It would be better if they were made into prose, or if the article was renamed "List of FIFA World Rankings". Why do you constantly "argue" with those who Object instead of trying to improve the article based on suggestions and others thoughts? — Wackymacs 12:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I think your wrong, misenterpreting the guidlines as rules and trying to calssify something wrongly. The FA procedure shouldn't be a matter of opinion, it should be an absolute measure of what are the best articles on wikipedia. To help make my point, I have a collected a few FA articles that have far more copious use of the bullet points and tables than this article. Would you says these are too listy to be FAs? Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace Margin of error Trigonometric function Well? Philc  TECI 12:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have chosen three very complex Mathematics topics, which often use lists. This isn't entirely opinion, to me the article violates FA criteria 2a as it does not have compelling and/or brilliant prose. — Wackymacs 12:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if thats how you feel, I'll respect that, but I chose mathematical topics because this is also a mathematical topic, in respect to calculating the rankings. Philc  TECI 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well, let me reiterate some of the above points. Firstly, this article is well written, factually accurate and neutral. Secondly, this article is NOT a list by itself. Moreover, the lists present in this article would be virtually impossible to transfer it into prose format. It also gives the reader a comprehensive view on the manner in which FIFA ranks international football teams. It also has a consice lead section as well as a proper system of hierarchical headings. A great article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Not a list (for an example of a football related list, look at FA Cup Final), great referencing, very comprihensive, and meets 2a. No problems. Th e  Halo (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object; while I don't think this belongs on WP:FLC, many of the bullets should be converted to prose: "The major changes were as follows:", "At the end of each season two awards are given;", etc. Also, there should be more inline citations from "Basic calculation principles" on down (I see three, "covering" half the article). --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I converted some of the bullets to prose, but all of the others cannot be done as prose, they are either a list with commas, or list in bullets, as it is listing criteria to a mathematical formula, how better to display a list, than as a list? whats the taboo with lists!? if you need to list something, why not use a list and list it!! What are inline citations? and I don't understand your last point. Hope you can continue to help. Philc  TECI 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists aren't optimal because they don't offer any explanation. So "The major changes were as follows:" doesn't give me any information on the major changes.  It doesn't tell me why the changes were made, it doesn't tell me what the reaction was, it doesn't tell me why the changes were even considered major in the first place.  All that information can't be covered in a list.  As for inline citations, they are the superscript numbers that link to notes at the bottom of the page.  See User:Spangineer/inline citations&mdash;they are important because they allow the reader to judge the quality of the information found in the article, and because they allow the reader to do further research.  One of Wikipedia's goals is verifiability, and inline citations are an important part of that. --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  13:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is well cited, and the list of changes is pretty self explanatory, eg, FIFA included Number of goals into the calculation, so that the number of goals would be included in their rank. Philc  TECI 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Object The entire overview section reads almost word for word how FIFA.com explains it.seeUser:False Prophet/FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview for a comparison. False Prophet 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This article most likely has yet to be copyedited. When creating the page User:False Prophet/FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview, I found a spelling error, and therefore strongly suggest this not be a FA.  False Prophet 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThis article has been called out for copyright vio on three occasions by three different users. I do not think this articles PR was properly adressed.  You can find the 3 different discussions on the following pages:

1. User Talk:Philc 0780 then User Talk:Jooler

2. User Talk:Philc 0780 then User Talk:A Musing

3. User Talk:Philc 0780

Note: The discussion goes back and forth, so you may want to open both links for the first two in seperate windows. False Prophet 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They're all the same occasion, not 3 seperate ones. Philc  TECI 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object: It would be best if featured articles did not have a possible copyright violation tag in their overview section; math should be formatted as something other than text; the selection of the top twenty teams is a completely arbitrary number; and it would be best for this article top have some explanation of why FIFA uses different methods of ranking men's and women's teams. This may well one day be a great featured article, but in its current state it does not meet the criteria. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Philc, please look at the comparison article and you can see the fact that it isn't original text is completely unagruable. How old are you?  I am a student, and I know that once you start Jr. High, teachers can see copyright vio's without even checking the papers sources.  I am going to check to see if this is listed as a GA, and if it is, I will ask for a review.


 * Comment: as the person doing most of the promotions at WP:FLC at the moment, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that this article does not fit the criteria for a list. Regarding the article itself, it needs more inline citations, less one-sentence paragraphs and an overall copyedit. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object what is the purpose of seeding? I know it's in a different article, but could a very brief explanation be given? Also, why is there a section for the seeding of the 2006 World Cup but not for the other years? Seems somewhat incomplete. Also, article seems a little disorganised: is there a way of merging the criticism section into the explanation of how the rankings actually work? The section seems somewhat disjointed at the moment. Also, the overview refers to an external site for previous years to 1999. I don' tthink that's too good, an explanation of the 1993 rankings is important to satisfy the comprehensiveness criteria of FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)