Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sigi Schmid/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 SandyGeorgia 01:57, 4 January 2011.

Sigi Schmid

 * Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This article underwent GA and a peer review several months ago. User:YellowMonkey rightly pointed out during the first FAC that some of the MLS seasons were not comprehensive enough. That has been adjusted, there has been some copyediting, and I waited until the end of the most recent season to get everything squared away. I feel that it now hits the criteria and is an in-depth review of the subject. I do not believe another peer review would significantly improve the article, but please feel free to point out any needed touch-ups if something was missed. Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Images look good, license-wise. File:Mls cup 2008 crew 657a.jpg image page could do with a cleanup, and File:Sigi Schmid Crew.jpg should be moved to Commons. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. Done and done.Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met 'however I would suggest that File:Sigi_Schmid_September_2010.jpg be moved to have the faces look into the text per WP:MOSIMAGES Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For sure. Done.Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Support with respect to FA 1a; at least I think it reads well. For disclosure, I've contributed a little to this article in the past and did a copyedit recently. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources generally OK. Some spotchecks carried out:-
 * Ref 2: The source is a long article that makes an indirect reference to Schmid's 2008 award but, as far as I can see, has nothing about the 1999 award.
 * Ref 9: Something needs fixing here
 * Ref 48: "In MLS, their 9–12–9 record was enough to make the playoffs. Schmid was widely criticized by fans throughout the season." The source makes no reference to the team's record. The text refers to "the beatings Coach Sigi Schmid has taken on Internet message boards" - no specific mention of fans.

Other spotchecks proved OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Was in a later reference. Added it to the line.
 * ref 9 fixed ref (characters in the template)
 * That was admittedly a paraphrase of various sources I saw. I'll poke around and see if they are already in the article or if I did not include them. Follow up: The ref for the record was later in the paragraph but I modified it and added a new one since it had more info. I also adjusted/toned down the line to read: "Schmid was criticized by fans...". This is based on the headline "Schmid Under Fire From Fans" and the line in the article "Irate fans are calling for Schmid's job..."). I recall seeing more and will try to pull them still if needed.
 * Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "He played college soccer at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1972 to 1975, where he was...". The "where" is intended to be about the college, not the years, so the sentence should be modified slightly to reflect that. "He played college soccer from 1972 to 1975 at the University of California, Los Angeles, where..." should be a good enough fix.
 * Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't "wins-losses-draws" have the dashes as well, since the record does?
 * Makes sense. Shows that you cannot always rely on a script!Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Early life: "Schmid's mother cooked for the 1958 and 1964 US Open Cup winning Los Angeles Kickers." Hyphen needed in "US Open Cup winning".
 * Done.
 * Coaching career: Italics needed for Soccer America Magazine.
 * Done with a slight modification.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The last bit of UCLA and US Soccer appears uncited at first glance. I see that the ESPN story used for the preceding Eric Wynalda quote backs this up; perhaps the cite could be moved down to cover both.
 * I am under the impression that all quotes need to be followed directly by a citation so I put it there instead of duplicating it over the line. So I will put it at the end since it is both a direct quote and a paraphrase. Makes sense to move it as you suggest but if anyone else sees this as a problem let me know.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Galaxy: I doubt that links for North America, Central America, and the Caribbean are needed, as I'd like to think most people know what those are by now.
 * Total overlinking there.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MVP should be fully spelled out. I don't think people would be confused upon seeing the abbreviated form, but you never know.
 * Spelled out first use.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "by winning the the previous year's MLS Cup." Excess "the" needs trimming.
 * Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is citing his Galaxy record? If it's reference 53, or even if it's not, please note that the article's wording is pretty close to the source.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This comes down to the quote thing again. It is in the preceeding line under the Sports Illustrated source.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. All done except for the last one.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose Comments: I think this article needs a copy-edit as sections of it do not flow and consist of strings of repetitive sentences (see below for some examples, but there are others throughout). However, I consider the article to be comprehensive and very thorough. Most of his major seasons are covered in detail and his coaching style is examined, as is the impact of his methods. It simply needs tidying up. If this is done, I would change to support, but at the moment the prose lets it down.
 * "Despite Schmid's early soccer experience, his parents thought a career in soccer was not feasible..." Repeating soccer.


 * Done?


 * Three out of four sentences in "UCLA and US Soccer" section begin "he". Then five consecutive sentences start with "in".


 * Ugh. Thanks for pointing that out.


 * "accumulated a record of 322–63–33": Could we specify what the numbers mean? It could in theory be games played, won, lost, or tied.


 * This is clarified in the lead. I have done in for first instance in the body now.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "One headline in USA Today read: "Schmid's tough style produces top players and UCLA winners".": This seems a little random; why is it just thrown into the article and why this particular headline rather than any other?
 * Was going for more opinion on his style. Happy to remove it if it comes across off, though.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "He also coached during the 1995 Pan American Games.": In what capacity; still as assistant?
 * Ouch. Looks like MLS updated that when they did the transition of their website or I simply missed it. Clarified/corrected.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "UCLA and US Soccer": This section does not especially flow and reads like a list of facts which do not connect. I think it needs a copy-edit.
 * Along with the last edit, I am moving the Hall of Fame thing to the end to conclude the information. I think it is is sufficient but I will see what else can be done. Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * LA Galaxy section is similarly choppy. For example: "Schmid was criticized by fans and it was speculated that Schmid would not return in 2004" repeats Schmid (and has the refs in the wrong order at the end); two consecutive sentences begin "The Galaxy" and there are other examples I could quote. However, the Columbus section seems to flow quite well.
 * Hmmm... I wonder if I did not write the Columbus section or if I was having a better day. Done?Cptnono (talk)


 * "Under Schmid, the team went 17–9": Again, what do the numbers show? Games? Goals? Wins?
 * Clarified in lead and first instance in body per above.


 * Refs for Honors and Managerial stats?
 * 


 * Ref 37 does not mention anything about Galaxy attacking.
 * Page 2 of the story. I changed the link to that specific page.


 * Spot check of other refs does not show any problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The in-depth review was appreciated. I think everything is straightened out now but let me know if the LA section was not cleaned up properly or if that US Soccer stuff still reads too much like a list after the tinkinering with the wording.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is much better now, and my non-prose concerns are all cleared up. The prose is now OK, but I think it could still be tighter. My suggestion would be to get someone (ideally someone who does not know much about Schmid) to have a look and copy-edit some more. There are one or two awkward parts such as "Between 1977 and 1979, he served as an assistant coach at UCLA. Head coach Steve Gay had decided to take a leave of absence from the role in 1980, and Schmid took over the position" (did he take over from Gay as assistant coach or become assistant and then take over from Gay as head coach. Maybe these sentences could be combined) or "He was successful developing players" (Why not "He developed players such as ... and ..." and link to the stat about his players going on to the national team?) or "He had a team that liked to attack in the 2001 season" (Did they dislike attacking in the other seasons? :) Maybe "His successful team of 2001 enjoyed attacking play/excelled in attack"?) There a few like this and I think it needs uninvolved eyes to spot them. If the nominator has no objections, I may have time in the next couple of days to have a look but even better if someone else could do so. However, I've struck my oppose after the work done so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet. I'll play around with your suggestions. If you get the chance it would be great but I will also see if I can grab someone else just to be on the safe side. Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick follow up: I made the changes you mentioned. I have made a request at the FOOTY project and asked a couple editors to take a look if they had the chance. One of them made two minor changes. I believe this is ready but would love to hear any other feedback if the prose can be improved further.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. -- Pres N  22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've copy-edited the UCLA and LA sections, but I feel they still need a bit of work from some fresh eyes as I think there may still be parts which don't quite make sense to the uninitiated. I think it's nearly there, but not quite. I've tried to remove some of the wordy parts and bits which were a little awkward. I'll keep looking and tweaking when I get a chance, but I still think another copy-editor would help to polish it up. It deserves it because the content is excellent. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You rock. Thanks for tweaking those sections. I'll ask around and see if I can get another copyedit before this closes out. Unfortunately, none of my off-Wikipedia buddies are any help with their familiarity with the subject and BAC.Cptnono (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Thank you for the recent copy edit. This bit is fine to remove. I thought it was "cute" but if it comes across as trivial it is not a big deal.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I'm copyediting as I go and will note anything I'm not sure about:
 * What is a CPA? (Possibly just displaying my ignorance here, but it should probably be spelt out fully). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certified Public Accountant. The first use in the lead is "Certified Public Accountant (CPA)". Should the body be spelled out as well?Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A local writer put some of the blame on a switch to defensive style of play while some players questioned his tactics" This seems a touch harsh if his previous success was down to defensive play. Was there a switch in his style for that season, or were the press just looking for someone to blame? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going for "harsh" but he was criticized and I was worried that it was getting to fluffy. Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "inconsistent lineups": Is this because of the injuries or another reason? If the former, it is not really necessary as it is implicit that injuries will bring changes to the team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The source does not specify. ("Injuries and inconsistent lineups have wreaked havoc...") Injuries were likely a major factor if not the factor. I didn't follow him while he was there but injuries were part (but not the only) reason for inconsistent lineups in Seattle last season so I am hesitant to assume.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "expansion franchise, Seattle Sounders FC": I'm not too familiar with the terminology, but I'm fairly sure this means they were a new team. I think this could be spelt out, so I've added it, but revert if it's wrong. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainly a US thing. Added a wikilink to expansion team also.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with one reservation : I'm fairly happy now (but would still like someone else to look at the prose as well). I agree with the "fluffy" concern a little and wonder if there are any skeletons in closets! But is there any other criticism of him as it looks a little like everything he touches turns to gold. Possibly this is true, but I wonder if other views exist. Any fan criticism, or more attacks by players he cut? If none of these things exist, that's fine. I will look at the article a few more times and probably tweak a little more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet. I actually don't even like the guy as a coach to be honest. Most of the criticism has has received was the last couple years in LA. I did find plenty of info on his defensive style which is one big criticism heard while sitting at the locasl bar, but he is almost always praised for it in the media which is where the sources are! The multiple mentions of overtime wins is in. I think those are not a good thing but the sources didn't connect that dot even though I wish they would. I think the table at the bottom (standard in the topic area) shows that he is not always winning but I have not found any sources discussing the declining ratio. Our press must have green colored glasses here in Seattle. Thanks for the copy edit and tweaks.Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Something could be added to the line in the lead that says he was praised for his defensive tactics by saying that his tactics were part of the reason he was sacked from LA. I think his termination could warrant some weight and might add some balance. Maybe "The style of play during his final two years with Los Angeles led to his termination"? I think a single line in the lead could actually do wonders for NPOV and straighten out this final concern as long as it doesn't look like a weight issue. Care to try something out?Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a go, feel free to tweak, and I've struck my reservation. A really thorough article, well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regarding this: It could be seen as a problem with WP:WORDS ("however") but when coupled with the preceding line it adds the correct balance so it does not look to be disregarding that part of the MoS. I'm completely happy with your edit.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick note: New image (OTRS OK'd w/ alt text and caption as well) added per a request for a more recent image from members of the Sounders FC taskforce Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Of a similar standard to John Wark and Bobby Robson and higher standard than Thierry Henry Spiderone  14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I finally had some time to sit down and read this article end-to-end and find it to be an excellent, well referenced article that covers in sufficient detail every aspect of Sigi's professional life as well as providing as much detail as is available about his life outside of soccer. The only criticism I have of the article is that there are references in the lead section.  WP:LEADCITE recommends against redundant citations in the lead for things that are already cited in the body.  That said, it also recommends a balance between removing redundant citations and aiding readers who wish to challenge/verify facts listed in the lead.  While it's my personal preference that nothing be cited in the lead section of any given article (it should only be a summary of the facts clearly cited in the body), since this is a BLP (I have little experience working on BLPs) I'm certainly willing to believe that it's probably better to have references in the lead here.  Regardless, this is just a minor thing and probably doesn't require any changes to be made.  Overall this is a great article and I happly support it being promoted to FA level. --SkotyWATC 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Here is too a great season, Skotywa. I also lean towards not using citations in the lead and don't recall why they are there. Maybe it was before I starting working on it or maybe it seemed appropriate at the time for some reason. I am OK with removing them if others want so whatever works best is fine.Cptnono (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, I've gone ahead and moved them out of the lead section. In all cases, the reference was already being used somewhere in the body as well, so the change was pretty minor.  I've stricken my nit-pick above and still fully support this article's promotion.  Great work Cptnono. --SkotyWATC 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.