Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German women's national football team


 * 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:SandyGeorgia 01:20, 30 September 2008.

German women&

 * Nominator(s): Pinkkeith (talk), EnemyOfTheState (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well referenced, informative and well written. Pinkkeith (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Restart, old nom. Images and sources checked.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, as per previous nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Support from
 * "Before a crowd of 22,000, they dominated favourites Norway and won 4–1 with goals from Ursula Lohn, Heidi Mohr and Angelika Fehrmann." Eh, I'm not sure that "dominated" is NPOV.
 * "The German women's national football team wears white shirts with black shorts and white socks, following the tradition of the German men's team – black and white being the colours of Prussia." "being"-->are.
 * I fixed that. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, I also support this nomination, although I'm not sure if I may do so as the primary contributor. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can, but I won't really count it, so the bolding just gets in my way :-) Why aren't you listed as a co-nom if you are the primary contributor?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Pinkkeith originally nominated the article. Once it was nominated, I thought it would probably be best if I responded here, because I know the text, as well as the used and available sources. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to be added as a co-nominator? I'm not sure how we missed this; I usually check all new nominations to be sure that primary contributors were consulted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really care either way. If this is in any way useful or practical, sure. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Sorry, but as per my previous comments, some work still needs to be done here and it's not quite up to scratch yet.


 * First and foremost - the German references need to be translated. You can look at how I have done it on this article or you can think of your own method (ask questions if your not certain, not just here, but at the respective project pages etc). Basically, you need to translate the related information into English. Not the entire story, just what is actually necessary to back up the statements.


 * I'm not sure about the information in the lead. Football team lead sections very rarely identify the manager and top goalscorer, even though I must admit it is well worded in here. It may not actually belong in the lead section. Have a look at Scotland national football team or even Croatia national football team again as I think these two have sufficient and almost perfect lead sections. Only the most vital of info should be initially stated, perhaps you could expand slightly upon the formation/acceptance of the team etc.


 * I think there are some small forms of POV issues. The initially stated issues above are still yet to be fixed up ('dominated' is not neutral point of view). Additionally, there is a constant use of the word 'popularity'. Wikipedia does not make assumptions or present such points of view. You also use 'disappointing' a few times, also in a heading. You need to really rethink these section names and how you refer to them.


 * The notes you have left with an astrix under some of the tables should be placed in references/footnotes.


 * Why have you used the copyrighted logo twice? It is acceptable to use it strictly under the logo copyright declarations, but their use should be strictly limited only where it is necessary. You are portraying the obvious facts through an already copyrighted image. It is not needed in the 'Colours' section. It is already known that such a crest is displayed on the jerseys of the national team.

Still a long way to go, not quite up to top quality research material just yet. But it is beginning to look good, better and better everytime. Just take it slowly and fix up these issues before you consider anything else, as these are the most important things I think. Domiy (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you judge this article by your own personal standards and preferences, not by WP guidelines or FA criteria. As I stated before, WP:NONENG does not ask for translations of foreign sources unless they are controversial or direct quotes. In fact, there are many sports FAs that use foreign sources without any translation (France national rugby union team, IFK Göteborg, etc.) Also, I do not believe that the structure of this article (such as the information in the lead section) needs to be entirely identical to a comparable FA like that of Scotland. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for verifying your own death (symbolically of course!). The wiki guideline you pointed me to clearly mentions translations are needed. Who are you to decide whether a statement backed up by a German reference will not be challenged? You cannot make that assumption, and must always consider the needs of the reader. It hasn't been hard for me to find challenged statements that can be contested and are backed up by German sources:


 * "For most of the 20th century, women's football was a niche sport in Germany and was frowned upon. When the DFB appointed Gero Bisanz to coach the newly founded women's national team, he was initially very reluctant about his assignment and feared it would harm his reputation.[2]" --- I as the reader can easily contest this statement. How do we know that Bisanz was reluctant to manage to the national team? Is there a quote in which he admits this? Or does the article comprehensively explain his negativity? Either way, this has to be translated to verify the facts in English, since this is an English WP.


 * "In 1955, the DFB decided to forbid women's football in all its clubs in West Germany. In its explanation, the DFB cited that "this combative sport is fundamentally foreign to the nature of women" and that "body and soul would inevitably suffer damage". Further, the "display of the body violates etiquette and decency".[2] " --- Here you have used direct quotes from the DFB and backed this up with the same German source. This especially needs to be translated appropriately. Whether the statement is challenged or not (it clearly can be), it still needs to be translated due to the use of a direct quotes.


 * "Schmidt accepted the invitation but hid the fact that West Germany had no women's national team at the time.[3]" --- I as the reader can easily contest this as well. You are saying that Schmidt was reluctant to reveal the lack of a women's national team at the time. How can I know this for sure? Did Schmidt say this or does the article explain it? Translations are needed.

These are just some very few examples. They are everywhere. Sorry, but these German sources need correct translations to verify easily challenged statements (including quotes!). Your negative response towards this leads me to feel that you yourself may not even be able to read or understand German all too well, and you have used the sources incorrectly. This may not be the case, but please understand that the guidelines still stand against you. And you are yet to fix up the POV and other raised points. You should really assume good faith and take constructive advice! Domiy (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Go back and read WP:NONENG. It indicates translations are preferred, not required. While it would certainly better to have English language sources available, its not a surprise that the best supporting material is available in German given the subject of the article. Your criticsm is misguided. Wiggy! (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiggy, read what this article is actually trying to achieve. It is trying to achieve Featured Article status. The most basic description of such is always summed up in the simple words of exemplifying Wikipedia's very best work. Granted, some things may not be 100% dead-straight necessary, but Wikipedia's best work is something that stands out from the basic guidelines and requirements; it goes into broader features based on the strict criteria to ensure it is this domain's very best work.


 * Support - I am happy this meets all requirements, good to see an article of this quality from the women's game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - as before. Has even been improved since my original review.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Images - There is a discussion at Featured_article_review/Scotland_national_football_team that may be relevant to the use of the logo here. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, use of Image:DFBWomen.png twice in the one article fails minimal usage per WP:NFCC, and thus FAC criteria 3. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the second use of the image. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the use of the logo itself is a non-issue and you're well aware of that FN. It's entirely legitimate, so just leave off. Wiggy! (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

CommentI'm glad you are prompt to respond to issues which seem easy to fixup. Sorry, it's just me, I'm very picky at things like this. Either raise discussion and give sufficient reasons as to why any of my points are not applicable, or go by them and fix up the article. One other probelm I found is the notes you have left under the tournament records section. First of all, as per my previous comments, they should be placed in seperate footnotes or references. Secondly, they are not really necessary. I'm not a big fan of stating the obvious like such:

Personally, I'm a big fan of German football (not so much women's but I'm half German so it still interests me). As much as I would like to Support this article and see it as Featured Content, it cannot be done just yet. I'd be really pleased with having the German sources translated as per the guidelines. Domiy (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "*Gold background colour indicates that the tournament was won. Red border colour indicates tournament will be held on home soil." In the columns that are gold, it says 'Champions' in there anyway, and the gold colour really does enhance the idea that they have won it. There's no need to declare something twice. It says 'Champions' in there, everybody will already know they obviously won the tournament. The same goes for the red column indicating the fact that the tournament will be held on home soil. In that column, it already has the flag of Germany which identifies the tournament will be held in their own host country. There is no need to restate the obvious fact.
 * I removed the statement about the gold background, however I don't think the border color is very self-explanatory; I think that should be left in. I also don't think it's a particularly good idea to put all of them into footnotes. It's done just like that in many other football articles, plus some of these asterisks have footnotes themselves, which would make for very confusing references section.
 * Regarding your main point of criticism, the translation of foreign sources: I'm afraid we might just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not going to put in translations for all the German sources, which would be a whole lot of work with virtually no benefit for readers. Especially since such a translation by a random user is just as unverifiable for someone who doesn't speak the language as the actual source itself. Not to mention that there are dozen of FAs that handle foreign sources just like this article does. If this issue will prevent this page from getting featured, I just will have to accept that. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Colours; color should not be the only means of conveying information. Also see WP:NONENG, the original text of direct quotes should be provided in a footnote.  WP:DASH fixes are needed. I see direct quotes (at least) in "Acceptance and popularity" and "Early history".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the dashes and included the original quotes in the footnotes. Regarding the colors, you want me to put the statement about the background color back in or even expand it? The colors are (in a way) explained in the results column of these tables (champion, second/third place). Of course, I don't mind including the explanation again. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Color should not be the only means of conveying information; blind or colorblind people need an alternate means of undertanding the text. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is not the case. The color is just highlighting the tournament results, but the are also written down in the results column. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does a colorblind person deal with, "*Red border colour indicates tournament will be held on home soil." ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is only additional information; the host countries are also indicated by the flag icons (granted, a colorblind person might have to move the mouse on it in order to identify the flag). But since there is only one kind of bold borders, plus all of these have a German flag in it, it's probably not too difficult to figure out that these are the mentioned 'red border colours'. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation reply to EnemyOfTheState - please stop referring to other Featured Articles. If there's one thing I have learned in my time at FA projects it is specifically that an article cannot gain any merits or light leeway in comparison to other articles. This is all about this article and this article only. It's funny you refer to other FA's as well. The amount of articles that passed for FA a few years ago are ridiculous, and it's no surprise they are the ones being listed for removal everyday due to them simply failing over time. Back on the main issue, as I said above, FA must show Wikipedia's best work, which would obviously mean that it must stand out uniquely from all the other basic articles. 1) The translation of foreign sources is doing just that, and is a big plus for the article. 2) I find it very annoying that you think it will not help the reader in any way. If you are going to think like that, then you may as well say all references all together don't really help the reader either, which is just another bogus statement. German sources are used very consistently throughout this article, and somebody who doesnt speak German is very likely to read the article and rely on the used references for verification and further information. If they see translated references on a Featured Article, they will know the translations are acceptable and so are the sources, so you dont need to worry about that. Additionally, they will be able to see how exactly the information is interpreted (sources can sometimes be misinterpreted which leads to confusion). There are so many reasons why German sources need to be translated. The fact that you have used them very consistently throughout this article is another prime reason. How do we, or the reader, know that you have not just stuck in any random German source which has nothing to do with the statements? We don't unless you provide translations. Again, the fact that you seem very negative towards this can easily lead anyone to think that you have actually done this. Domiy (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I am negative towards this is due to the fact that this would be a lot of work with no real benefit. If you don't trust the foreign sources as the are, why would you then trust a translation I provide for them - that could be entirely made up as well. Per WP:NONENG, I have included the original text of direct quotes in the footnotes, which is really all you can ask for. I do not accept the examples above to be truly controversial statements; by that standard, everything would be disputed. If readers want to check specific sources, they can for example use an automated online translator or maybe ask a trustworthy user at WP:WikiProject Germany. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NO! Maybe I have miscounted, but there are 32 German sources in your article. This is really unacceptable (without translations). Foreign sources should be used with minimum use, and only if there is no alternative in English. I very much doubt this is the case because of the amount of times you have used a German source throughout the article. Anyway, please refrain from trying to be given leeway on this article. Nominations aren't supposed to be taken lightly, this one is no different. What you're saying is that you expect the reader to go through the trouble of using a translator or asking questions just so they can verify some information being used in the article. I will tell you right now, what makes you think the reader will want to go through this trouble if you aren't willing to go through the same trouble yourself? Why should the reader have to be faced with such a task when this is clearly an article that you and your co-editors/nominators are responsible for? This cannot be the case with a Featured Article that is supposed to show Wikipedia's best work. How can 'best work' be mistaken for 'an article that cannot be verified in the respective language' (English)? Translating your sources will have a big influence on the reader, just as much of an influence as the normal use of any reference has: Verification! If you were to translate your sources, then I would be prompt to check your translations with a translator and possibly also ask questions myself; just so I can spare the reader the trouble and make sure that a Featured Article is actually Wikipedia's best work. Since you are not willing to translate based on insufficient arguments, then I don't see how you can possibly think this will pass FA. I really recommend you close this nomination, consider translating the German sources (for all the already stated reasons), and, when you do that, THEN consider coming back here. Until then, this article cannot even be verified in English.Domiy (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It stands to reason that the best sources about a German subject are in German. Expecting otherwise is a recipe for systematic bias. Asking for full translations of every German source is like asking for every single book reference to be accompanied by a verbatim copy of the page. With the exception of direct quotes, this is absolutely not the intent of WP:NONENG. The walls of text about this subject have probably already put off enough reviewers, perhaps further comment upon it should go to the nomination talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Too much information to read' is not a sufficient argument. The walls of text contain constructive information. And your comments are also not sufficient either. You are proclaiming that using an English source (which is always the preference on WP) would deliver biased views in comparison to a source in the same language as the article subject. With the greatest respect to your efforts or attempts, this can be taken as a non-serious post. Foreign sources, especially those in the same language as the article subject itself, are very likely to not only convey, but also deliver biased information. It is evident in every host-nation domain. Sky Sports will always portray England as the preferred team, Jutarnji List will always portray Croatia as the preferred team, and The Scotsman will always portray Scotland as the preferred team. The same goes for German publishers portraying Germany as the preferred team. You, along with others, really need to read WP:NONENG instead of directing me to it. I have read it, and I will repeat it here for you just for assurance - Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. In other words, this is clearly saying that in the case of foreign sources being used, translations are required, unless there is another way to ensure that non-bilingual readers can verify or be assisted by a source of information they don't even understand. Once again, let the record show the negativity shown by the editor in his refusal to translate the sources; it is very possible that they do not even back up the statements in the article. Unless you can verify this... Domiy (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You omitted the crucial part of the quote: "...editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." (emphasis from original). Oldelpaso (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That clearly still doesn't resolve the issue or kill any of my arguments. The whole paragraph talks about verification, hence Wikipedia's best work as a Featured Article should certainly be able to be verified in English as per that same guideline. Domiy (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This article really is a pleasant surprise. From a football point of view everything you'd expect in terms of comprehensiveness is there. The approach used in the "Coaches" section is different to a lot of similar articles, but as the team has only had three coaches there's no problem there. The one improvement I might suggest is that the second half of the history section perhaps might flow better with the odd sentence in there to link tournaments together or describe events between them. This is only a picky minor gripe though. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional opposes and comments first of all, the German sources are used too much. Remember the rules on this, you should only use them if there is no possible alternative in English. You say that Germany lost 1-0 to Norway due to an own goal in the semi-final at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Its the Summer Olympics! Are you telling me that there is absolutely no English story on the internet (BBC Sport for example) that does not publish results of one of the biggest sporting events around the world? I think not, meaning you have used German sources as primary references, which is wrong. Also, the references are badly mixed up. This source from FIFA is labeled as 'German', while this English source is also labeled as 'German', even though it is in English. Additionally, POV is still evident in the article and is yet to be fixed up since the points were initially raised. Domiy (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the two incorrect language icons. The reason for the German source for the Olympics is to provide a reference for the claim that Germany dominated the game, but lost to an own goal; in that story even the Norwegian coach is quoted as saying his team was very lucky to come away with the win (btw, there are also two English language references for the 2000 Olympics in that short paragraph). I think there is really no point in discussing this any further here, we will clearly not come to an agreement on this issue. If you feel so strongly about this, you might want to consider taking the discussion to the talk page of WP:NONENG. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and by the time I reach any conclusion there, this article would have already been promoted due to preference once again, then I would have to go through the review procedure which would again be ignored even with very sufficient evidence. I'm not talking out of any spite, it's happened before and I'm certain it will happen again. I don't see why I should take a discussion elsewhere when it clearly has a place here. You just refuse to see that. Featured Articles take a lot of work and time, you can't expect to get away easy with any of them. You must really show Wikipedia's best work in them. Again, you are trying to exemplify WP's best work by promoting an article that cannot even be verified in English, I don't see how that is possible. You say that the Norwegian coach described the win as 'lucky' or whatever, well please, to verify this information you need to really translate the relevant aspects of that source. It's the same with images, simply placing a tag is not good enough, evidence is always needed to prove that the image is actually released under the stated tag. This is called verification, and it needs to be done very commonly in Wikipedia. Since this is an English language WP and you refuse to translate any references which are in a foreign language, then they are actually unreliable. So, you have used an unreliable source for about half of your references. this is WP's best work, as it is very broad and clearly took a lot of time. If you are unwilling to help out the readers significantly and refuse to translate foreign sources, then I don't see how you expect to make FA. Domiy (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.