Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mongolia national football team results/archive1

Mongolia national football team results

Featured list candidates/Mongolia national football team results/archive1

Nominator(s): Gri3720 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, aside from my belief that the article meets the general criteria to be a featured list, the list is referenced by a variety of reliable sources from several languages, including the language spoken in the area that the article is about. Images have been added to supplement the content of the article using formatting beyond the most basic. Mongolia has been a FIFA member only since 1998 so it was possible to begin a list that does not have gaps in early history, though pre-FIFA content was researched and added and will continue to be. The article will be simple to maintain and update at to the standards of a "featured list" as the Mongolia national team does not play matches often. The formatting of the article has been modeled upon other similar pages that have achieved featured list status, such as Faroe Islands national football team results.Gri3720 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I like the design, based on the Faroes list, and this one is equally informative and well-researched. I've no problems with it at all and I think it deserves promotion. BoJó | talk UTC 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose All I am going to say is that the Faroe Islands that received featured list status looked like this. The Mongolia page doesn't look one bit like the Faroe Islands page that became a featured list. The Faroe Islands list has to be reverted back to the original structure or it's going to lose its FL status.--Cheetah (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to say that there is not a standard format for featured lists. Mongolia's list of results should not automatically be disqualified from featured list status just because it looks like the Faroe Islands just like it should not automatically qualify because it does. There is not a single correct format.--Gri3720 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. @Crzycheetah: Perhaps I should have specified that what impresses me most is the research, not the design. The key words in my assessment are "informative and well-researched". I do like the design, but that is a secondary point. I agree with Gri3720 that there is no standard format and so any comments about a list design are simply "by the way" remarks. What matters is the work that has gone into the detail and, as far as I can see, that is good enough for the list to deserve promotion. BoJó | talk UTC 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Faroe version that was voted as a featured list and List of Montserrat national football team results (a featured list) had a very similar structure and style. That style became a standard format for featured lists. Currently, this list is failing two points of the criteria: Structure and visual appeal. Since structure (also known as design of the page) is a part of the criteria, it is NOT a secondary point.--Cheetah (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in this page that disqualifies it on the grounds of style, structure, design or visual appeal. Where does it say that one style is the standard one? BoJó | talk UTC 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that. It does say that It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Also, it says It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. This list currently fails those two points. The ones I showed you as a standard format did not fail this criteria. --Cheetah (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion on the issue but think that the points in the description that you are referencing leave a lot to opinion and preference. Structure and, particularly, visual appeal are subjective. I do not see how the page is not easy to navigate, it includes numerous section headings, and the only table in the article is sortable. Again, "...suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour" is subjective. It would be more beneficial if you would state specifically what is unsuitable about these characteristics. Also, you cannot say that there is no standard format and then refer to the format of the Faroes and Montserrat as the standard format.--Gri3720 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stated what part of WP:FL? this list fails. I provided two featured lists that show what needs to be done to pass those criteria points as an example for you to model on. Unless some changes are made, I will not come back. --Cheetah (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support for now but needs more - Disagree entirely with Cheetah's comments. Personally, the tabular format in the two lists noted is not helpful, you can't go to specific years or competitions so to me would not satisfy the criterion: It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Lists like the Faroe Islands one were promoted five years ago. My personal view is that I don't think that there is a need to rigidly hold to a presentational style and more generally, I think we have moved on in terms of presentation, if anything, their FL status should be revisited.

I would however like to see more in terms of:

Analysis of the results, not just a list, for example something along the lines of Bhutan national football team results or Northern Mariana Islands national football team results. But then I would as I wrote those two!
Something that introduces each section, a couple of sentences summarising each section, which would help break up the page visually and make it more readable.

Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive feedback. I reviewed the two pages you suggested and agree that some introduction to each section would be beneficial and potentially add to it visually. I added a new section in anticipation for the 2016 AFC Solidarity Cup and followed your recommendation (at least as well as I could based upon the limited information available at this point). I will continue to add analysis and commentary to the other sections as I can. Thanks again and nice work on your pages....it seems we both favor minnows as the subjects of our articles.--Gri3720 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

I think there should be a better separation between FIFA-sanctioned games and other ones.
the intro talks twice about "first ever victory"
summary table should have a totals row
intro shoudl clearly spell out the ~5 countries Mongolia beat, and probably mention the rough total games it played (FIFA and non-FIFA sanctioned) and how many of these were not losses).
the intro should mention briefly leading goalscorers or possibly notable players if any

Nergaal (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just briefly glanced at the list and spotted a problem. None of the colored items in the tables have a matching symbol, which is required per WP:ACCESS guidelines. Please do consider fixing this, as it's going to be difficult for me to promote the article with such a clear breach of accessibility standards. While I'm here, a few of the references are in ALL CAPS, which is a style guideline breach. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gri3720: are you returning to this candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suggest strongly that this is closed, the nominator has failed to respond despite editing lately and there's little sign this nomination is active. Archive without prejudice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]