Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NK Maribor players/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

List of NK Maribor players

 * Nominator(s): Ratipok (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every important NK Maribor player, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. Also, the list was subject to a Peer review, however, it seems that no one is interested in doing list reviews at this time (couple of other lists went without the review as well). Ratipok (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try to find someone who would be willing to do the review.Ratipok (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have asked the Wikiproject Football task force for help and hope someone will respond:) Ratipok (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now, on sourcing, probably MOS:FLAG compliance, and criterion 5a "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". Sorry about the difficult questions, hope some of this stuff helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prose: odd bits of English that aren't quite right: things like putting "the" when it shouldn't be there, or omitting it when it should, wrong choice of prepositions, the sort of minor stuff that comes of writing (very well, in general) in a language not your own. If you'd like me to do a very minor copyedit just to fix that sort of thing, I'd be happy to.
 * Colour symbols. I think the symbol templates are supposed to be written out in words, as rather than . And it might be better to separate the words "international" and "club", so that a screen reader can read it properly.
 * Table column heading. "Retirement" is the wrong word, but I can't think of anything that's a proper opposite to "Debut". Perhaps someone else can. If it were me, I might have gone with something simple like "First" and "Last", or "From" and "To".
 * The Rank column's going to be fun to update... Probably it should be centre-aligned, like the other numeric fields.
 * You need to pick a single as-of date, and use it for everything time-dependent. At the moment, in the lead section you've got Marcos Tavares with 228 apps as of March 2013 and 84 players w/100 senior apps as of 16 March 2013, yet the main table is up-to-date as of 7 April. It's often a good idea not to include in the lead anything that's going to need updating every match.
 * Colours. Personally, I find the gold and silver colours unpleasantly intense for such wide boxes, particularly at the bottom of the table where there are a lot all together. Do you think it might look better with lighter colours, or none at all?
 * Note D. Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source (and certainly not for international caps for minor countries: it struggles enough with recent caps for well-known European countries). There must be some alternative to verify Mr Siberie playing for Netherlands Antilles, it's not as if you actually need the number of caps or dates.
 * General ref. The accessdate needs to be updated when the stats are changed. Doesn't look very professional if the stats are supposed to be accurate asof April but the last time the source was consulted was January...
 * Foreign-language sources. Can you add an English translation of article titles, for those that aren't just people's names. There's a trans_title parameter, if you're using citewebs.
 * Player selection. I thought these lists were now intended to aim for a complete list of players, either in one article where feasible on size grounds, or split by number of appearances if size dictates, but without any extras like record-holders or internationals? I would ask for input from people who might know, but given the singular lack of comments on this nomination, wouldn't hold out much hope...
 * Flags. Could you explain how flags are chosen for those players without international caps? I've read note B, and I'm afraid it sounds to me a bit like guesswork. Don't know how much you follow WT:FOOTY, but one of the perennial discussions is on how to allocate flags, and it's difficult enough without half the players coming from the former Yugoslavia... The approach taken in some recent footballer FLs is have an international representation column rather than nationality, so the only players who get flags are those who have actually been selected for international football, and they get flags for all appropriate countries. It's an approach that avoids having to guess FIFA eligibility for players born in a former country to parents of different ethnicity to that of the country in which the player later lived...
 * More flags. What are your source(s) for player nationalities?
 * Internationally capped players. Again, where are these sourced from?
 * Playing positions. Again, where are these sourced from?
 * Redlinks. About a third of the players listed are redlinks, which IMO is rather more than "a minimal proportion". Are all the players listed "notable" in a WP:NFOOTBALL sense? If any are not, then they should be unlinked, which would reduce the number of redlinks.


 * Oppose I agree with many of the concerns listed above; most notable for me is the apparent OR for the playing positions and the nationality, while I also think that the rowscope should be the player's name (given that this is a list of players). I think "ranking" the players like this is undesirable: I have no issue with the list being initially sorted by appearances, but included a "rank" seems subjective and strange. As italics, like bold text, is often not picked up by screen-readers, it should not be used as a sole way of indicating something, such as current members of the club.  Harrias  talk 10:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.