Talk:F.C. Copenhagen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 F.C. Copenhagen falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on F.C. Copenhagen is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
F.C. Copenhagen was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 4, 2006
F.C. Copenhagen was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 4, 2007
F.C. Copenhagen was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 1, 2007

Contents

[edit] Move?

Should this article be moved to either F.C. Copenhagen or FC Copenhagen? Crvana Zvezda's article is also placed at Red Star Belgrade, so this could also be moved, when København is Copenhagen in English, and when this is the English Wikipedia, the name of the article should be in English. On the French, Japanese, Polish and Swedish Wikipedias the article name is also on that language. kalaha 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right that it needs to be moved, and I think it should go to F.C. Copenhagen as that is what is used on the English part of their website. Poulsen 06:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm always in two minds about this sort of thing. We don't change abbreviations in club names to English when they're in another language - ND Gorica, HNK Hajduk Split, K.S.K. Beveren, for example, so why change the placename? Crvena Zvezda/Red Star may be a special case since the Serbian looks intimidating to English-speakers! Note that the Dutch and German versions are at "FC København", as is the Norwegian - but I don't know that the Norwegian name for the city isn't København anyway! -- Arwel (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The Norwegian name for Copehagen is indeed no:København. Poulsen 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why has this article been moved further to the current name?? It doesn't make sence. kalaha 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved by User:Koavf on basis of "naming regulations". However all other football club articles use the abbreviations of F.C., A.C., and so on without any spacing, so I think we should move it back to F.C. Copenhagen. Poulsen 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too... kalaha 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

As of 4 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, this article has failed for Good Article status. The reasons are given as follows

  1. Prose is not compelling and does not flow smoothly. Sometime a sentence is too long to explain many things. Somebody needs also to check the grammar. criterion 1.(a)
  2. The lead section should follow WP:LS. It currently does not summarize the article and too thin to stand as its own. criterion 1.(b)
  3. Reorganization is needed, as now there are many sections/subsections with only a single paragraph. The history section is badly needed to be reorganized. Subsection headlines in the History section do not divide the section into a meaningful structure. criterion 1.(b)
  4. The article is a list-like. Try to put into more descriptive text in a summary style. criterion 1.(c)
  5. The article is not broad enough. Missing major aspects that should be given for a sport team: home base stadium, fans club and management. criterion 3.(a)
  6. The logo image Image:FC_København.png, Image:Linderoth jensen rl draw 06.jpg andImage:Fck-shirt.jpg, have copyrighted tag and its fair use rationale is not given. criterion 6.(a)
  7. References are not given according to WP:CITE. The list is unreadable where it came from. What is the meaning of This is updated at 1 October 2006 in one of the reference list? criterion 2.(a)
  8. Avoid ongoing and future events, only states facts from the past. This will make the article unstable. criterion 5
  9. Other sister projects or WP articles cannot be used as a reference, per WP:RS, because they are not reliable. criterion 2.(c)

As overall, please read again Manual of Style, as the article is hard to understand. Try to make a full story, rather than fragmented information. You can always ask other reviewer if you disagree with my review, or improve the article based on my comments above and re-nominated again. You may want to compare this article with other sport teams listed in WP:GA. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here 4 months later, the previous reasons are made better, and so is the article in general also. If you see this revision as of 4 October 2006 and compere to the current revision (diff), you will see the big difference, and because of that I, Kalaha, is re-nominating this article for GA. kalaha 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed again

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

I'm going to fail this article. First of all, there are too many lists and too little prose. I would try and move most of it to a sub article. "Honours" should at least be in the same area as the other lists. If you have trouble with the structure, then have a look at Arsenal F.C., which is a FA and a good model for how it should be done. The biggest issue is references. Most of the history section lacks inline citations. The article also fails to have a fair use rationale for the clubs logo. --Maitch 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you please insert {{fact}} to help me know where exactly you want references? kalaha 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To start with, you need at least one per paragraph. --Maitch 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations are "only" strongly recommended, and are not compulsory, according to WP:GA?. Poulsen 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Cat rename

I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a Category for renaming. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen. --Dweller 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion now correctly placed at WP:UCFD --Dweller 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA november 2007

There are a lot of problems with this article, mainly sources and prose.

  • The reasons for the merger need to be explained since it is the reason for the existence of the club. It should likely also be mentioned in the lead
  • Article is about 85% sourced to the club’s webiste. Per WP:RS, for a GA, independent references are required.
  • Prose and English is generally substantially below the level required for a GA. The article needs to be copyedited, generally speaking. There are many sentences where the language is not sufficient.
  • When a person is referred to multiple times it is not necessary to repeat their name in full over and over. In ony paragraph “Brian Laudrup” is written in full three times. In some sentences, pronouns should be used so that we don’t have “NAME” die this. “NAME” did that over and over.
  • Seems unusual to describe one spectacular goal in so much detail (Zuma). Football is about scoring goals to win games, so in the context of the whole team, one beautiful goal is not needed.
  • This history section however, is comprehensive in detail. Well done on that.
  • Sentences in the “Colours” section need to be merged. Too many one sentence paragraphs.
  • There should probably be a section about corporate info/budget and the board section. How does this club fit in with Parken, for instance.
  • Some parts in the supporters section are not referenced.

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it.. The criterias the article failed on last time are fixed, but it still isn't good enought to pass. I have had a WP:RFF for the article, with the last things to improve. Job is done, but the article is apparently still not good enough? kalaha 09:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Some of Wikipedia's guidelines are at times redicilous -- especially about the citations, I think. Let's not cry about that, and most of Blnguyen's suggestions are straight forward to implement. I suggest, we strike out when done from the below list, and that other users just edit in the list, if they disagree with my suggestions:
  • Explain on the reasons for the merger. This one is a tough one to find (independent) references for. Who even says they exist? And do we want the official reason or the real reason in case there is a difference between the two? And do we really agree that this is important?
  • An easy fix to the independent references is to find them for the obvious stuff. Shirt colours e.g. can be found on the DBU website, and several places multiple fck.dk references can be collapsed into one.
  • Collapsing names into one mention is straight forward.
  • This is a tiny detail about the Zuma goal, which is an important goal for most FCK fans, but OK it is a bit lengthly descibed. Take out a sentence (maybe the last one?) from the desciption.
  • Copyedit the whole article by someone fluent in English and rewrite the "Colours" section. Most Danish people think we are experts in English, but are not, so a native speaker would be very welcome.
  • Can we find more references for the "Supporters" section? FCKFC must have some on the creation of itself. Links to Urban Crew, Copenhagen Cooligans and Copenhagen Casuals could be a way out of the lack of references to them?

Anyway, thanks to kalaha for his work on this article. Christianvinter (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the words and your will for the article, Christian. I actually found a thing about the reason for the superstructure in the club's history section[1]:
"KB forsøgte to gange at indføre professionel fodbold i 1980'erne men det lykkedes ikke at få nok økonomisk støtte til at gennemføre det. Som en konsekvens heraf kom KB længere og længere væk fra topfodboldens landkort. B1903 var derimod i den periode en etableret topklub i Superligaen, helt frem til 1992. På trods af topplaceringerne var der et meget skuffende fremmøde til kampene på Gentofte Stadion (under 2.000 tilskuere i gennemsnit), men da klubben havde den økonomiske opbakning fra den lokale mæcen Alex Friedmann var tilskuertallet ikke alarmerende. Da KB ønskede et professionelt hold og B1903 havde en god trup, men en usikker fremtid, eftersom Alex Friedmann ikke længere kunne garantere sin økonomiske støtte, blev en overbygning pludselig et tema."

kalaha 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)