Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive2


 * 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 Dabomb87 02:13, 11 July 2010.

List of Recopa Sudamericana winners

 * Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has complied with every requirement in the FL criteria. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from KV5

Several issues from the last FLC are still outstanding, especially regarding sortability. These should be corrected before reviews are made. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * it is not clear whether previous concerns have been met.
 * lede cd use a copyedit, and peer review
 * re:sortability, i dont care, don't think it's particularly needed.
 * center align emdashes
 * Use of non-free image which is purely for decoration


 * FINALLY I figure out a way to sort the table and make it decent. Now everything is done.Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * what do you mean? It doesn't look sortable to me. (I don't care about sortability, but nevertheless). Sandman888 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from MicroX
 * Wouldn't it be better that the winners be bolded instead of italicized? It's easier to spot bolded text than italicized text like here.
 * Unfortunetly, that is the sort of problem I ran into the first time (MOS:BOLD).
 * I think we should make an exception here because the bolding practice comes from the cup articles when a team advances in the bracket; we bold the team to indicate which team advanced. In addition, there are several other instances where we bold text, like when bolding the honors in club articles. --MicroX (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For that year when Olimpia won both tournaments, wouldn't it make more sense for Olimpia to appear under the "winners" column only and the rest be spanned by "N/A"? After all, there was no score, opposing team, or opposing country that edition. --MicroX (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "Despite the fact that Sao Paulo also won the two qualifying competitions". A less wordy version of this would be "Although Sao Paulo also won the two qualifying competitions".
 * You're right. I fixed it.
 * "Argentine clubs are the most successful of the tournament". "of" → "in"?
 * Done.
 * Has the point system changed over time? I ask because I notice that Nacional apparently won 3–1 in the first competition with a win and a draw. Or is the figure given incorrect?
 * It is accurate; back then, a team received two points for a win, not three like today.
 * Agree with the comment above about the non-free logo not being a necessity here.
 * It is not a requirement, true, but it is an added touch that "helps the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey". Call it a bonus for being specific.
 * What makes Soccerway (reference 2) a reliable source?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right again. I replaced that link with a more trusted source. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from
 * RE: The previous table format I suggested:
 * I'm concerned about the unneccesary use of headers constantly switching between "Home team" and "Winner". By using an (a) and (h) [and (n), if neccessary] you can make seperate two legged matches with  and then everything can fit under a Winner column. In my opinion this is a massive simplification and advantage. This would also give the option to add sortability (but I'm not too worried about that).
 * Rambo's Revenge (talk)  15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


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