Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sigi Schmid/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 14:47, 25 May 2010.

Sigi Schmid

 * Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article in the push to improve the Sounders FC topic area. The article provides a complete overview of Scmid with highlights of his tactics and managerial style. It has undergone a couple copy edits from other editors and a peer review. All style guidelines should be met. My copy editing is subpar, but I hope any errors should be minor enough to quickly fix.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * Content
 * 1. Seemed to fit most of the FA criteria. The only one I'd mention is "comprehensive". It was comprehensive in data, certainly. Yet, there may have been more to be said about his coaching style. I don't know, I'm not an expert in this area. This flows into the next anyway.
 * 2. It seemed that each paragraph had a list of encyclopedic information, and the last sentence in many paragraphs had a single sentence tacked on that talked about style or some "color" aspect. Two possible suggestions IRT this. First there is the sentence (under "UCLA Soccer") "Although common among successful schools throughout the country, Schmid avoided recruiting foreign players to bolster the UCLA squad." At first glance, it seems that the sentence is a bit out of place. It's probably not, given the format for the rest of the article, so I'll just say that the transition from "fact" to "style" is probably less than successful in this one case. There may be a way to reword it so it's not verbose, but transitions better. Second, consider adding a "Coaching style" section to synthesize all the "style" sentences you have sprinkled throughout. I'll stop short of an "oppose" on the "comprehensive" criteria for an FA since I'm not an expert in the area or the person. I'll let other editors weigh in on this if they want. I'm sure you'll address it if others note it as well.
 * I considered adding a section devoted to style and tactics at one point. I haven't seen such a section in similar articles so I tried to keep it chronological. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tried radjusting and moving the foreign player line. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not sure if the second adjustment is an improvement in that it still seems like a couple of sentences plopped in the middle—not normally seen in an FA. It's possible that simply tweaking a few words would have been fine, and allowed you to keep it at the end of that paragraph (just improving the transition into that sentence). It might still be OK like this, so hold off on making a knee-jerk correction based on this. Other editors will let you know if it's not going to work. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3. You have a couple of sentences that are not "incorrect", but you might consider rewording them. E.g.: "Partially based on their mother dying when Sigi was 23 and Roland was 13, Sigi says that the two have a special relationship." Since the first 8-10 words in a sentence are the most important, this might be better written as "Sigi says that the two have a special relationship, partially because their mother died when Sigi was 23 and Roland was 13." (Note: It's not immediately clear why this would engender a special relationship. It's possible to add text explanations in the notes. See Rosa Parks and Absinthe for examples.) The final sentence in that paragraph might also be better reworded in that manner. Again, not "wrong". Just a suggestion.
 * I was originally hesitant on that line. I considered breaking it into two and your suggestion of the ref. Simply removed it since it comes across as unnecessary and vague. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4. Images are nice. Consider if there are any more images that could be added. However, with what you have, your images and quotes are all right justified. it might be a bit of a visual break to stagger them to the left and the right.
 * I've heard differing views on this. I like staggering myself so I will happily take your advice. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how you staggered them. Other editors might feel differently, but neither method will affect the FAC criteria. It's just cosmetics. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Format
 * 1. "German–American" probably needs an en dash. There may be some room for interpretation in this, but the WP:MoS under en dashes provides for en dashes "To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border)." Again, room for interpretation. :::Not sure. The article without a redirect.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck since it's not right or wrong either way. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. "He was named the Coach of the Year by Soccer America Magazine." It's not immediately clear what year in the text. You might add the year for this.
 * Fixed? Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3. Check all your punctuation IRT quotations marks with the WP:MoS. You have some commas and periods inside and outside ending quotation marks (which is fine with the logical punctuation used in the Wikipedia MoS), but there are some inaccuracies. Just scrub through on this. E.g.:
 * a. wrote that UCLA had shed "its 'underachiever' label."
 * b. stated that UCLA had "acquired a reputation for producing some of the nation's best goalkeepers."
 * Lame. I was going for WP:LQ and missed a couple. Fixed. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4. "Erik, Lacey, Kurt, and Kyle." These names aren't in alphabetical order, so I'd assume they are in age order? Maybe it's useful to list their ages then, but it may not be necessary. However, you list them in this manner and then elaborate about them individually in a different order. I don't know the rationale for the order of listing their names in the article. Just take a look to see if this paragraph needs some internal reshuffling for consistency. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume it was a copy paste from the source and then the additions I made were just sloppy. I'll change it to alphabetical. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Object I would have to say that only having one sentence each for the 2006 and 2007 seasons isn't good enough, especially as in football, the coach is the dominant person in the team and works out all the tactics. Especially as the team came last, which obviously would have garnered a lot of attention from pundits and critics. And in 2007, what specifically happened "a losing record". In general the article is skinny throughout as the coach usually chooses who to recruit, chooses the team, and forces all the tactics and strategy. In Australia, soccer is only the fourth most popular type football league, yet there is on average at least one article a day, on each team in the local city newspaper. I think more can be squeezed out easily, and it's unlikely a team would be last for a whole season without trying to implement changes in tactics, etc  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This could actually be seen as both a neutrality concern and not being thorough enough. I will see what I can pull up.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like '06 and '07 were pretty bad. Filled it out some.


 * Comment I believe the above concerns can all be addressed quickly and easily enough. However, I would be happy to resubmit this at a later time if it has turned into more of a peer review than a FA nom. Thanks for the comments Airborne and Yellowmonkey. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Minor format issues:-
 * Refs 8 and 24 are oddly formatted, with the publisher given before the title. The standard format (which you have otherwise used, is author (if known); title; publisher; retrieval date.
 * Fixed


 * Ref 27: The publisher CNN/Sports Illustrated, not ESPN
 * Fixed


 * CNN/Sports Illustrated is a 24-hour online sports news service, and therefore should not be italicised - see 29, 32, 33, 41, 46
 * Fixed


 * Ref 64: needs a publisher (apparently Taiwan News)
 * Fixed

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up It still is not comprehensive. From a second look, in 2001 and 2002 they won silverware and made the regional Champions League, but there are about two lines on these successful seasons. There is still a lack of weight on earlier stuff  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. A few lines added. Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.