Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2013

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Peru national football team

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article has already been nominated a couple of times in the past. The article meets FA criteria, especially when compared to Scotland national football team (the other FA national football team). All the article needs is support votes. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick Comments - There needs to be one consistent system for citations, per FA criterion 2c, WP:CITE and MOS. The article currently employs two methods...full citations and short citations. If you choose to use full citations, I find the {{rp}} template useful for noting differing page numbers over repeated citations. The article at first glance looks to be quite informative. I will take a second look over the next week if/when the citations are addressed and brought into one consistent system.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am a tad confused by the recommendation. I am using the Chicago Manual of Style for citations (same as what I did in the Pisco Sour article). There the footnotes (or "references") have this mixture. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on this very unfriendly comment you recently made towards me (see [2]), it might be for the best if you please do not review this article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is an acceptable referencing style, and has been used on several FAs (reason why the websites are further below is because they're only cited once). I note, however, that the Virgilio Roel book has no citations leading to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: - I would disagree, but our reasons would likely be subjective. I've seen other FA reviews over the years that have considered this referencing style inconsistent and I believe it inconsistent. I withdraw from further participation in this review because MarshalN20 has been belligerent with me in other areas, but my comment stands for further discussion wherever it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHenry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 September 2013‎

• Marshal calls Henry "unfriendly" and Henry calls Marshal "belligerent". I'd say the score is one all and you should probably just stay out of each other's way for a while and let this FAC continue in a collegial manner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Crisco. I remember renting the Roel book, which is why I listed it, but I seem to have not used a single piece of information from it. I cannot even recall if I read it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Why do some flag icons link to the relevant country while others don't?
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Sotil_Cubillas_Challe_1973.png: when/where was this first published?
• The stadium image is quite blurry; would you consider using File:Puertaestadionacional.jpg instead?
• File:Raul_Toro_y_Lolo_Fernandez.jpg: this appears to not be a photograph, and so the licensing tag would be incorrect
• File:Peru_1970_National_Football_Team_(digital_restoration).jpg: when/where was this first published?
• File:PER-URU_1927.jpg: with the given licensing tag, this is vulnerable to deletion at Commons, as it isn't free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what flag icons are the problematic ones.
2. Yes, that can be promptly fixed.
3. The image was published in 1973 (in a qualifiers match for the 1974 FIFA World Cup), in Lima sports magazine Ovacion. The funny story here is that Peru did not qualify for the World Cup (which, I guess by now is not unusual).
4. The suggested image is a picture of the old stadium (prior to the renovations). Here are three other good ones (File:Estadio Nacional de Lima, Peru 01.jpg, File:Estadio Nacional de Lima, Peru..jpg, and File:Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg). I personally like the second and third, but which do you like best?
5. I have contacted the original uploader at Wikimedia Commons (see [3]).
6. The image was published in 1970 in Peru. The match was prior to the World Cup of that year. Some of the players in the image were later benched during the World Cup.
7. Yes, the PER-URU_1927 image should be removed.

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nikkimaria, the uploader of the "Toro y Lolo" image file has replied to me at Wikimedia Commons. He assures me that the picture in question is a colored photograph (please see [4]). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – History: "which debuted in the that year's South American Championship." "the" should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Ian Rose, User:Nikkimaria, User:Giants2008. Do you guys think the article is now ready for FA status? I really think this article cannot get any better, and it is a great model for others to follow. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree The article is quite clear and easy to read, regards. ----Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 19:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment - Unfortunately this nomination has not generated a clear consensus for promotion and I will archive it in a few minutes. It is important that reviewers express unqualified support based on which of the FA criteria they have addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

Wishology

Nominator(s): Mouseinphilly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the introduction gives out detail of the episodes. It shows why it's notable. There is no poor grammar or poorly worded statements. I like how the plot is split into parts, and there is outstanding reception and production sections. Mouseinphilly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Broken reference templates, far too much referenced to primary sources (at a minimum, none of the Nickelodeon or Frederator Studious sources are independent), dead/mistargeted links (reference 18, at least), and several sources about whose reliability I will need some convincing. Outside of references, the quality of the plot summary prose is perhaps the greatest concern; while there have certainly been changes made since the second FAC, the fundamental objections about readability and tone still apply. Additionally, other prose is short of the expected brilliance for FAC (one particularly striking sentence from the lead: "The film centers on the show's main character, 10-year-old Timmy Turner, his fairy godparents Cosmo and Wanda, and his baby fairy godbrother Poof, all of whom grant Timmy's wishes.") and the level of detail in the Cultural References section exceeds what policy would suggest (especially as it is all, or nearly all, referenced to primary source material only). There is no discussion of home media releases. In general, this article needs to more closely regard WP:MOSTV. And finally, File:The Fairly OddParents- Wishology.gif appears to be improperly licensed; this is an advertising poster but the use rationale and license both treat it as a screenshot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose -- the nominator has made 0 edits to the article, and has not demonstrated anything that could convince me that he/she will see this nomination through to the end. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest withdrawal Clearly not ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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