Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive4


 * 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 Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014.

Peru national football team

 * Nominator(s): MarshalN20  | T al k 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Peru national football team, a presently mediocre sports team with an illustrious history. Several past (although relatively recent) FAC reviews ended in no consensus to promote not due to oppose votes, but rather due to lack of support votes (despite the plentiful commentary). This sports article is the best national football team model and deserves to be considered part of Wikipedia's featured content. Thanks.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further notes Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 12:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Image review conducted by Nikkimaria in archive 3. No new images have been added since then.
 * 2) Major improvement suggestions last addressed in archive 2. No new major changes have been made since then.

Additional note
 * 1) Actually, after analyzing the article and its derived works, I have done a series of major improvements to the article this year (2014), including citation improvements, image re-arrangements, and content improvements. If the FA reviewers could please double-check the citations, it would be most appreciated. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: MarshalN20. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am not particularly knowledgeable about football, especially in South America, but I feel this nomination has waited long enough, so I am providing a few general comments which I hope will kickstart a more detailed review.
 * Opening words: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football competition". Isn't this rather a statement of the obvious?
 * In my view there is two much use of acronyms in he first paragraph. We have FPF, which you explain properly, then FIFA and CONMEBOL, which require readers to link to other articles. I think you might get away with FIFA, but I suggest "South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)"
 * "Its traditional rival is Chile, but there is also a prominent rivalry with Ecuador". Awkward repetition, and "prominent" is probably not the best choice of adjective here. I would simplify to something like: "There are longstanding rivalries with Cile and with Ecuador"
 * "...because government sport authorities intervened in FPF affairs under allegations of corruption." Needs to be expressed more clearly, e.g. "while allegations of PFP corruption were investigated by the Peruvian governemnt's sporting authorities.
 * In the History section, what is meant by "food ways"? In general there is too much reliance in this section on direct quotations for fairly unremarkable expressions, for which a brief paraphrase would be more appropriate. For example, "British advisors, engineers, and other technicians (including sailors)" could easily be "British civilian workers and visiting sailors".
 * "ending last in both the 1990 and 1994 World Cup qualifiers" – "finishing last"?
 * A "hiatus" does not "experience" a recovery, full or slight. A hiatus (a break in continuity) may be followed by a recovery.
 * "...despite achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América and attaining its highest FIFA position in July 2013,  Peru did not qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup". The word "despite" suggests that Perus 3rd place in the Copa America, and its FIFA ranking, were contributory factors in its World Cup qualification. They were not - the World Cup qualifying competition is a separate affair. The sentence could read: "Peru achieved third place at the 2011 Copa América, and reached its highest-ever FIFA position (19th) in July 2013. However, it failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup."

I only have time for a few brief further observations:
 * Players": what you describe as the "current squad" was evidently put together for a single friendly match. Why was this match particularly notable, to separate these players out from the others? A squad chosen for one match does not normally become the "national squad".
 * You don't need dates of birth and ages - the ages will soon be out of date anyway.
 * "Recent callups" table: "in the last 12 months" needs some actual date referencing, since "the last twelve months" is a constantly shifting time span
 * What is the logic for the ordering of the players' names in this section?

That's all I have time for. My last observation is that the prose would benefit from a full copyedit by an editor who has considerable experience of writing in good quality English. I don't think previous copyeditors have done a particularly good job – the prose is decidedly flaky for a fifth-time nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Brian, thank you very much for the review.
 * I agree that there are several redundant phrases and concepts in the article, but these are requirements from the guideline at WikiProject Football/National teams. That link should answer your last few questions about the "current squad" and "the last 12 months". Also, the Scotland national football team article (the current only FA national football team) should further help out.
 * Some additional responses:
 * The logic of the players' ordering (in the "Recent callups") is based on the last match they played with the national team.
 * The article has been copy-edited various times (formally and informally), but its prose can certainly be improved by reviewers. If you have some additional time available, further prose improvement suggestions are by all means welcome.
 * Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey
Support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian
Support—I have reviewed this article at great length over the past fortnight (see below) and have provided a thorough copy-edit. After a lot of progress I feel the article now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support its promotion. Well done MarshalN20; I hope this gets the support it needs this time. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support from John
I now support this candidate. Well done for all the improvements. --John (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, John.-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Image Review by Wizardman

 * Image review: I see an img review was done in the last FAC, but doesn't hurt to double-check. 10 images in all, first one is a logo that passes copyleft status due to its simplicity. Rest of the images check out ok except for the ones noted. First, File:Perurumania1930.JPG is tagged as PD for Chile, but it shows a Peru-Romania match. I'm sure it is PD, but is that the right tag? If Los Sports, the source, is Chilean, perhaps make that clear. If it is based in Peru, then change to the Peru PD tag you use elsewhere. Also, I'd like to see File:Inside Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg's description fleshed out due to how vague it is, though it is not a requirement. Wizardman  04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review, Wizardman. Yes, it seems Los Sports was a Chilean magazine published during the 1930s (there's a substantial article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia). The Peru-Romania match was surprisingly violent, so that may be the reason it got coverage in Chile. Although I imagine the World Cup was also the only notable sporting event that took place in South America at that time.
 * I improved the description of the Estadio Nacional image, but I really don't know what was going on the day it was taken.-- MarshalN20 T al k 05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and linked Los Sports on the image, since I didn't realize we had an article on it (one sentence, but it exists). Everything else looks good now img-wise. Wizardman  00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal
There are a bunch of issues I noticed and I will try to list them as I go through: Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Intro
 * "he 1930s and 1970s" there should be another the after and
 * " and is without a manager..." there is something weird about this whole sentence
 * second para and on: I don't really like how the intro is organized; please try to talk about each set a competitions in an order: start with WC record - by taking 2 or 3 sentences; then talk about the copa america; then other stuff such as the olympics
 * have 3rd para talk about say famous people and managers
 * then perhaps talk about rivalries, jersey, etc
 * last intro para talk about recent developments and current trends in performances
 * History
 * I don't really like how this section is and I think you should have 3 subsections: 1) early beginnings and first world cups (1930s); after Rodillo Negro up to 1982; 3) modern/recent era
 * when was the first friendly and first official international game played?
 * "Starting with Ciclista Lima in 1926, Peruvian clubs toured Latin America." needs a citation
 * "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in Uruguay in 1930" move to next para
 * " the national team's underperformance" during what period?
 * " reached its highest-ever position in the FIFA world rankings" I think you need to specify here since when are the rankings recorded/calculated
 * "It failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup finals, nonetheless" please state the place. You should clearly state the performances for whenever you say it failed to qualify (i.e. was it #9 or #4?)
 * After history
 * "the country's national colours" are they national colors, or just flag's colors?
 * " it was most recently renovated i" plural?
 * the stadium section is a bit longer than it needs to be; who cares about vip boxes and other aluminium crap?
 * when was the last time a game was played at a different stadium?
 * supporters section could probably benefit from an image (of supporters painted/dressed in whatever color(s))
 * rivalries
 * please give some statistics of W/D/L games
 * Records
 * "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources" should probably be moved in the history part
 * "eru came top of their group in the first round, eliminating Chile and Bolivia, and in the semifinals drew with Brazil over two legs, winning 3–1 in Brazil but losing 2–0 at home. Peru were declared winners by drawing of lots. In the two-legged final between Colombia and Peru, both teams won their respective home games (1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima), forcing a play-off in Caracaswhich Peru won 1–0" should be summarized in the history section
 * perhaps mention here that only the big three won the cup more than twice
 * the bottom two para in the olympic section are TMI
 * Players
 * please decrease the font size to something like 90% and auto-hide the recent callumps stuff
 * add a (hidden) table for the notable players section with caps and goals


 * Thank you for the review Nergaal. I addressed the most important that I could easily fix at the moment. Some comments:
 * The Ciclista Lima etc. citation (#22) covers two sentences.
 * I'm very limited when it comes to tables & other such Wiki-gadgets. Plus, I remember the WP:FOOTIE members did not want for the player tables to be altered from the current consensus (all football articles have the same format for the player tables).
 * I'd prefer for the history section to have no subsections.
 * Ian plans to close this FAC on either Friday or Saturday. Hopefully it will pass so that this FAC review matter is not again repeated for a fifth time. We can discuss the other suggestions you're making afterwards. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose since after spot-checking some pf my comments they didn't appear to have been addressed yet. Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nergaal, most of your suggestions are merely personal preferences over non-major matters (including points that challenge the established consensus at WP:FOOTY). I have addressed those points that indeed required immediate attention (such as: ), but the rest can be discussed at a later date. As much as I appreciate your review, simply not abiding by everything you list does not entitle a logical oppose to this nomination. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 T al k 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when Marshal and I discussed on my talk page, I said I'd close it Friday/Saturday if nothing much had changed, and since then John's concerns have been resolved and we've had an additional review, hence it's remained open. Now, it may be that some of Nergaal's suggestions are indeed not actionable because they don't follow football article conventions, and I know you've mentioned a couple of things and included a diff of changes above, Marshal, but it'd be easier for the FAC delegates to judge things if you responded to each of Nergaal's points to say it's been actioned or it hasn't been actioned because... Per FAC instructions, just don't use ✅ templates or the like.
 * Also, have I missed a source review above, i.e. one checking the references for reliability and consistent formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ian. I'll address the points in a list (which should match, point-by-point, what has been presented by Nergaal:
 * Intro:
 * Addressed.
 * Addressed.
 * Disagree; Because: subject to personal preference; current introduction is the result of various past copy-edits (the last being conducted by Cliftonian), and I like it as well.
 * You mean you disagree with my 4 of my comments? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is a single one, which you then proceeded to elaborate. I don't see how it can be interpreted in any another manner, but I respect your perspective if you disagree. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * History:
 * Disagree. I prefer that the section remain without subsections because it makes the table of contents and the section too bulky.
 * You can have the TOC show only the 1st level subtitles Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First international game was already mentioned, please read second paragraph. Friendlies are rarely important (i.e., the "first friendly" is unimportant).
 * Depends if the friendlies were before the first official matches. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Peru had no friendlies prior to the first official match.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed
 * Addressed
 * Addressed
 * Addressed
 * Disagree; too much detail for summary.
 * After history
 * Addressed. National colours.
 * I don't see how. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The introduction & body did not have the same information. Introduction mentioned flag, but body talked about national colours. I addressed the problem with the following edit: . Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean.
 * Addressed. Section is 4 paragraphs, the standard summary length.
 * Addressed.
 * No image available. Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rivalries
 * Disagree; too much information. Also, information is not available without conducting WP:OR.
 * How can you talk about a rivalry without saying who is winning that rivalry? It is like saying USA and USSR had a big rivalry during the cold war and not saying one of them eventually failed. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, the second sentence of the sections states: "The Peruvians have a favourable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile." This sentence indicates who is winning the rivalries. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Records
 * Disagree; this is a World Cup record.
 * Disagree; information is specifically related to Peru's Copa America record (second victory).
 * Good, but not necessary.
 * Addressed. Mixed the two paragraphs into a single one, removing extra information not directly related to the Olympic tournament.
 * Players
 * Recommendation is against WP:FOOTY conventions. All football articles have the same table.
 * Disagree. The player records section is at the end of the article.
 * Best regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just based on the above it does look to me that the nominator has made a reasonable attempt to deal with these comments, and I'd welcome Nergaal's response. In the meantime, a source review is still needed, and I've listed a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ian & Nergaal, I have also addressed the supporters image recommendation. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ian, Cliftonian appears to have done a source review above - did you want another? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did miss that -- no, that's fine tks, Nikki, stand down...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sorted, I still believe the nominator has made reasonable efforts to address the concerns of the one opposing review, so it's time (finally) to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Comment from Giants2008

 * Comment – "the last incumbent was Uruguayan Sergio Markarian, who managed the team from 2010 from 2013." Last "from" should be "to" instead. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Thank you Giants2008.-- MarshalN20 T al k 04:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.