Wikipedia:Featured article review/IFK Göteborg/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 06:24, 8 August 2007.

[edit] IFK Göteborg

[edit] Review commentary

Johan Elisson, Marsaskala, Raman7, Krm500, WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Football notified

The article has a lack of inline citations, all the sources are in Swedish and there are some POV issues. Epbr123 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations, check and already working on it (this was featured before thousands of inline citations were needed). POV issues, can't do anything about it until you actually tell me where those POV issues are. Swedish sources only, I don't see the relevance in that. – Elisson • T • C • 11:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For a subject where the amount and quality of literature available in Swedish greatly exceeds that available in English, using Swedish sources is entirely reasonable. Oldelpaso 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Nominator, please provide examples to back your claims. Joelito (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples of possible POV:

• "Idrottsplatsen fell into decline due to bad leadership"
• "No other major sponsors are seen on the kit which, together with the long time use, has made the kit a classic in Swedish football."
• "The last years before the new millennium were a disaster compared to the earlier success"
• "No one really believed that IFK would survive the group and enter the quarter-final stage" Epbr123 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have citations ready for all of them, and they will be added as soon as I get to those sections. Anything more? – Elisson • T • C • 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the citations for the above four examples, but I haven't really finished the work of adding all inline citations yet. – Elisson • T • C • 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"No one really believed that IFK would survive the group and enter the quarter-final stage" - even if there is a source for this, it unlikely to be provable that no one in the world believed they could qualify. Epbr123 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just write what the source says. Please give a suggestion on what I should write instead. – Elisson • T • C • 13:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the source in Swedish? How about "Few people believed that IFK would survive..."? Epbr123 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Both sources (I added another) are in Swedish. The first (available in the net) says Än en gång hade man gjort det egentligen ingen trodde var möjligt. (Once again they had done what no one really thought was possible.). The second (old newspaper) says Inte ens den blåvitaste galning tordes andas nå't åt det hållet. (Not even the most Blue-white maniac had dared to even breathe something like that.). Rewriting it to "few people" would just introduce a weasel word that I don't even have a source for, as both sources state that no one believed they'd make it, not that "few" people believed they'd make it. Anyway, since the wording is taken from the sources, and they're noted right after that part, I don't really see any POV issues anymore. The sources might be wrong, someone may have believed they'd make it, but that's not our problem anymore, that's the problem of the sources.

The article should be written in the tone of an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Epbr123 22:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Göteborgs-Posten isn't a "tabloid newspaper" in the "sensation newspaper" meaning. If you mean how the actual sentence is written, I see very little difference between my wording "no one believed" and your suggested wording "few people believed", except that the first is closer to what the sources use. Again, as said below, this is a very minor thing and should perhaps be discussed on the article talk page instead, while we should focus more on the review as a whole here. – Elisson • T • C • 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this is just a very minor thing in a much larger article. I'm still not finished with adding inline citations but I've done quite a lot. How does it look this far? – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of: According to SOURCE, no one believed IFK would survive... If the source is biased or exaggerated, it will be repeated in the article. You know what news is like. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing "according to [source]" is, IMHO, exactly the same as just adding the note at the end of the sentence. – Elisson • T • C • 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not always; some kinds of statements need explicit attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. The WP:LEAD could use work to make it a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. Citations are incorrectly italicized. And see WP:DASH with respect to scores (example: However, IFK Göteborg was eliminated in the quarter-finals by Bayern Munich after a 0-0 draw in Munich and a 2-2 draw at home.) That's what I saw on a quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), POV (1D), LEAD (2a), and MoS issues (2). Marskell 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I've added a few more citations and I believe that won't be a concern any more (but please tell me of any sentences that you would like a citation for if you find any). POV has been discussed to death in the above section and seems to concern a single sentence (for which I've given two citations). LEAD, well tell me what is missing (most featured football clubs have almost the exact same type of lead). MoS issues, I've fixed the ndash issues, not quite sure what is meant by "Citations are incorrectly italicized" (point me to a specific guideline please?). – Elisson • T • C • 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are author names italicized? I don't recognize that biblio style; book names or newspaper names are italicized in several styles. Also, can you please add language icons to the sources? For example, {{es icon}} renders (Spanish); that helps readers know not to bother clicking on a link they may not be able to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've used italicised notes for references that are available in full in the references section (both here and on a few other places). I don't mind changing them back to non-italicised though, even if I doubt there is a guideline against such usage. Also added language icons (which I don't like very much). – Elisson • T • C • 20:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have any comments on the improvements to this point? Getting around to closing time. Marskell 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you stub the redlink in the lead, and find someone to make a pass through the prose? Here's a sample sentence:
  • Things started to happen to the Swedish football culture in the late 1960s, being heavily inspired and influenced by the English supporter culture, which flourished in the 1970s and 1980s, giving birth to some of the most classic Swedish supporter clubs, AIK's Black Army, Djurgårdens IF's Blue Saints (later Järnkaminerna), and IFK Göteborg's supporter club, Änglarna.
• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in the process of creating all the seasons in Swedish football (I've done around 100 out of 130 so far), and I will get to 1976, but I can't see the point in creating a stub just to get rid of the redlink (which is not crucial for the article in any way, and neither is it a FA criteria to have no red links). I agree about the prose though... I've had some help with the prose earlier but I'll get someone to re-check it as soon as possible. – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are not a criteria concern; nice to fill them in, but they don't have to be. Let us know if you feel you've finished up with the article, Johan. Marskell 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, redlinks are not a criteria concern; it was just an aesthetics question, since redlinks in the lead aren't attractive. Not an object. I added two cite tags to one completely uncited paragraph that contained hard data and a statement about the club being bankrupt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the two cite tags with references, the bankrupcy stuff is cited earlier in the article (history section) but I've added the same note again just in case. – Elisson • T • C • 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the meaning here; is it in 1917?

IFK Göteborg won Svenska Serien—the highest Swedish league at the time, but not the Swedish Championship deciding competition—for the fifth time in a row 1917. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in 1917. Changed. – Elisson • T • C • 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I am working on the prose. Is it particular sections which are causing concern, or the article in general? Oldelpaso 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I see Oldelpaso went over this some. The LEAD has also been slightly filled out. With a backlogged page, this doesn't need to hang around here for weeks and I think it's broadly within criteria though people should continue to work on the prose. Marskell 06:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.