Third times a charm I think. After two previous (rightfully) failed attempts, all the previous issues in the former nominations have been dealt with. Numerous copy editors have looked over this page and made their appropriate edits.
So basically, this article has come to FA candidate. I and others ensured that it meets the criteria. It is well written in an appropriately attractive manner and includes all relevant information. I personally worked on all the referencing, which I am fairly proud of as this is the most highly referenced national team page on WP (even more than the Scotland page which is already a FA). Two possible issues which may occur:
1) Stability - due to a large amount of edits in the past weeks or so. I will say now, this has been solely due to the fact the article has been the subject of constant improvement as I and others have made all appropriate edits to meet the standards. The only things which will change on the page are the stats in the tables, which are just updated after every game.
2) Fasach Nua may once again bring up the issue of the national team logo used as the lead image. Again, I will say now that this is an ignored issue. It has been bought up numerous times and ignored by the larger amount of people who feel that the logos are indeed not able to be replaced, as opposed to using national flags instead.
I'm willing to work on any last minute issues which anyone may have to perfect this article. So here goes. Domiy (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Looks a lot better than the last two times. Let's see if the prose can be refined further... *FIFA is still linked twice in the lead.
"Croatia has also defeated four-time world champions Italy on two competitive occasions..." Why is competitive needed? I know what this is trying to say, but it sounds redundant.
Pre-independence: "a Croatian team played another fifteen friendly matches..." Numbers above nine are usually given as numerals, but this can vary depending on the editor.
Move current reference 9 after comma.
I notice some inconsistent date usage; there's 2 April, 1940 and May 16, 1991. You'll probably want to go with the non-U.S. style.
1990s: "and went on to play their first modern day international in a friendly game against the United States..." Is this awkward, or this just British English again?
"Alijosa Asanovic counted as the first goalscorer for the newly established side..." Why not just "Alijosa Asanovic was the first goalscorer for the newly established side...".
Move ref 19 after comma and check for this throughout the article.
"Croatia entered the 1998 World Cup with victory over Ukraine in a qualifying playoff." "With victory over" needs an "a" inserted, but I'd prefer "Croatia earned a berth in the 1998 World Cup by defeating Ukraine in a qualifying playoff."
2000s: "The tournament did however see them earn a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France." Could be "However, the tournament did see them earn a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France."Giants2008 (17-14) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - In one of the previous edits, I believe that "competitive" is needed. There is a difference between competitive matches and friendly matches, and a team is normally "easier to defeat" during a friendly match because a team like Italy is not going to risk the state of its players in a friendly, while Croatia might due to image (or it might not, but the teams skill level is less relevant regardless). It might sound redundant, but in my opinion it's not.JonCatalán (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks a lot Giants2008! In respective order here are the points addressed:
Removed second FIFA link in lead.
Fifteen is now 15.
Moved ALL the references after commas, I personally preferred having them before such but I've noticed its become more of a recommendation so I've gone along with it.
The date issues confuse me as well sometimes. I hope I've done it correct this time. I went through and fixed up all the dates, they are now named with the month first and then the day number.
I understand the confusion. It's difficult trying to get this specific statement across, I've done my brief best to reword it to something less confusing and difficult to read.
Reworded as recommended.
Already dealt with commas now.
Reworded as recommended.
Reworded as recommended.
If there's anything, please inform me further. This can be deemed NA for now since I have dealt with these points. Domiy (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
JonCatalán, I have found that 'competitive' is actually not needed since the statement already describes the type of matches the victories were achieved in, which are clearly sanctioned as competitive fixtures. So this is Done as well. Domiy (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
All images are tagged correctly and have appropriate fair use rationales, where necessary. —Giggy 03:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
question Why is the copyrighted symbol Image:Croatia football federation.png used to represent the team in preference to the free symbol used by FIFA and UEFA, Image:Flag of Croatia.svg, to represent the team? WP:NFCC#1, states that a free alternative need only be of "...acceptable quality..sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", the flag is acceptable for the two governing bodies. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The logo of a country's governing body for football is appropriate for the article on the national team. It acts, in a sense, as the logo of the team. —Giggy 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the (free) flag, as used by the governing bodies unacceptable for encylopedic purposes? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply Giggy (and everyone else!) please ignore him. He has bought this issue up numerous time on countless different discussions and they have all ended in a negative manner towards him. He simply doesn't understand all the legitimate points which have been bought up, any user will tell you that. Your simply wasting your time talking to him. Fasach Nua, your entering close grounds for a ban I think. You cannot just keep bringing up issues which have already been resolved and proven wrong. Had the flag been used in this article, it would look very out of place and incorrect as all other national team pages use the logo instead. There is no doubt that there would have been an oppose by now if the flag was used as it is simply not acceptable in the case. Therefore, you are bringing up a situation which will end in a loss either way. And it's getting to sound blatantly intentional right now, I am seriously thinking of reporting your mind-games. Please do not pollute this nomination page with useless debating as you have already been proven wrong! Everybody (including the directors/reviewers/admins please ignore him and get back to the real issues on the article article. This may sound extremely unacceptable but you have no idea about this situation and how many times it has been negatively resolved. He simply doesnt listen! Thanks for co-operation! Domiy (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
oppose inappropriate use of images (criteria 3), WP:WAX is not sufficient grounds to bypass WP:NFCCFasach Nua (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
[Again, please ignore him and carry on as per usual. I have left a message for the nominators/directors regarding this so don't treat it as a big issue. It will be dealt with but this isn't the time or the place.]
Comment Some of the editors on the page have also recently done some last minute changes, mainly just for statistics count and changed a few single words to lesser the amount of prose issues which anyone may have. Still open to anything, otherwise a simple support should be in order. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 108 has just plain numbered links. Links should have titles per the MOS.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to check the non-English language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
On About.com see this archive from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The abbreviations are such as HR, UEFA, FIFA or similar.
On another note, it's a LOT easier for me to track FACs if you at least put your replies to me underneath my comments. Even easier for me is to put them interspersed (and indented) beneath my bullet points so that I don't have to do tons of scrolling to see what has been replied to.
DONE ON REFERENCES!Javno is reliable as they do indeed have an inclusion and submission policy. They work in both Croatian and English and have their own estblished and paid publishers. This is such:
Such makes them reliable sources one should think. Domiy (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
On About.com, you need to prove that the person writing the information is an expert in their field, published elsewhere than about.com in reliable sources themselves. About.com doesn't really exercise much oversight over their writers, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
commentThe first match is listed as 1940, a reference need supplied that this team and the 1940s team are the same in the eyes of FIFA Fasach Nua (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The date notation changes between date first and month first.
Referencing should be placed after punctuation.
"Their FIFA World Ranking has been more volatile than any other nation, ranging from third to 125th" Needs a reference
"with Davor Šuker scoring one of the most skillful goals of the tournament;" Almost certainly true, but I think it needs a reference. I can certainly think of one other goal which could claim that title.
"12 yard mark" Hyphenate
"Referee Graham Poll was widely criticized for his inability to control the match and soon retired from international umpiring." Umpiring is wrong. I guess you've said so to avoid using referee again. I would suggest officiating.
"With the introduction of new players such as Eduardo, Modrić, Ćorluka and Rakitić," Give names in full.
Don't force image sizes
"Also used by league champions Dinamo Zagreb, Maksimir is remembered as the site of the Dinamo vs Red Star riot that took place in the lead up to Croatia's war of independence. As well as football matches the stadium is used as a concert venue." What relevance does this have to Croatia national football team? I suggest these are details that should be in Maksimir Stadium but not here.
"Though violence between the two groups has marked fixtures in the domestic league, clashes are generally absent from national team games." Needs a reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
DONE - Reply to Ealdgyth These references have been bought up before. In respective order:
BecomeaCroatiafan is the English supporters 'unofficial' home page (because for non-Croats who support Croatia, they cannot use the actual homepage because it is in Croatian). This reference can be easily replaced (the first one I mean), but only with a Croatian source. WP states that English sources always have strength over foreign ones, and should be used where possible. The other sources from the same website are merely player profiles which just state basic quick facts.
RSSSF is an accurate statistics foundation used in countless articles on WP, especially football. It's even used on the Scotland national football team which is already a Featured Article.
I've seen about.com used on some other Featured Articles as well. Other than that, its already an established website. What doesn't make it reliable?
PlanetWorldCup has been replaced with a FIFA.com source, although I see no problem with it initially.
Dinamo11 is amongst the English supporters websites for the team as well. The same case applies. WP states English articles are much more preferred and reliable in any case, so Dinamo11 is used over a foreign source.
Croatiansoccerreport has its own authors, stories, and websites which publish all the up-to-date information about Croatian soccer. A lot of fans use it for information. Again, also note that it is a secondary source, not a primary reference. Its used to merely reflect the controversy of the match against Turkey even though a reference is provided before it containing similar (but not identical) information. I will remove it if you really want, pending a confirmation on such though as I have left it in for now.
Goal.com source has been replaced with a BBC Sport source. The only other time it is used is to list Croatia's squad in the tournament, and even then it is a secondary source.
Removed OleOle source.
Removed Soccerphile source.
Removed zagreblife source.
Removed World Cup blog source.
Javno are one of the leading news publishers in Croatia. They are like 'SkySports' in England or 'New York Times' in the US.
The derkeiler news story is clearly stated to be from 'The Associated Press', which is a reliable news site. Derkeiler are known to host articles from other sites with permission, as has been done here. The page states that it is from 'The Associated Press', however just on a different site. I've fixed up the reference to state the 'work' as such now.
The only abbreviations you may think are necessary to fix up are the Rec.Sports.Soccer. sources in the notes section. I know it looks like abbreviations, but that is the full name of the domain. They refer to themselves as the 'Rec.Sports.Soccer Statistics Foundation', Wikipedia shouldn't go against the domain name. Same goes for things like FIFA.com and BBC Sport - they needn't be listed as full names. They are consistently known and named by their abbreviations, most people don't even know what they stand for. Wikipedia is not expected to against the names referred to on TV, radio, and even the actual sites themselves! Why confuse people like that? Besides, the actual domain/publisher name is clearly listed as such, so changing it into a different full name will be going against the name of the publishing organization.
Fixed up reference.
DONE - Reply to Fasach Nua It's clearly an obvious fact that there was only one Croatian team in the year 1940. I dont know why anyone would need a reference like this, but it is sourced numerous time throughout the rest of the article. So that's Done as well.
I accept that there was only one Croatia team in the 1940s, I accept there is one Croatia team now, but I dont see any evidence that they are the same team, could you direct me to the specific reference for this. Ireland briefly had two FIFA recognised teams, both called Ireland, both selecting players from the whole country, both competing in the 1950 World cup, but they wern't (and stil aren't) the same teams. Wimbledon F.C. is clearly not the same team as AFC Wimbledon, although some people like to pretend they are, and I would like to see tangiable proof this is not the case with Croatia. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont think you understand football fully if your asking a question like this. What other team could it have possibly been? National teams come from the nations themselves. Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia at this time but they formed their own separate team which soon became official. FIFA recognised them as the football representative of a state called 'Croatia'. The only difference between the 1940 team and the current team is that the 1940 team was unofficial and unable to play competitive matches. Other than that, they were still both representatives of the state of Croatia and played football on the nations behalf. This is the most basic of sources. Others also state it clearly, you can get all such information by actually reading the article and looking at the references provided in this section:
Please don't bring up obvious questions. It again seems you are deliberately delaying and ruining this nomination. I also explained the situation and you seem to fail to understand it. Northern Ireland and Ireland are two different states clearly recongised separately by FIFA. There is only one Croatian state which has been the same since the first proposal of a sanctioned Banovina or Nation. Again, this is all explained in the article and backed up by appropriate references. Your just lengthening pointless discussions now to find any way to diminish this article. Croatia doesnt have any denominations like Northern Ireland does with Ireland. Croatia is just Croatia and always has been. Likewise, all the Croatian teams that were organized represented what people called 'Croatia'. If you dont understand this, then it has nothing to do with the Featured Article nomination but blatantly an issue with your understanding of the subject, so it has no place here. Domiy (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have already opposed on ground of inappropriate use of images, and I now also oppose on the grounds, that it is unclear what team the artilce is even about Fasach Nua (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your image oppose has already been opposed itself by another user who initially told you it is an inappropriate alternative to use the national flag (just like so many other people have told you). Now your opposing because you simply cannot understand the clearly written subject? I have supported numerous FA candidates just by reading the articles and comparing them to the criteria, even though at times I have absolutely no idea about the subject itself. The article is about Croatia, I just told you that. You seem to think that new squads equal new teams all together. Stop your childish ranting and deal with the issue properly. You have no grounds for an oppose, therefore they are ignored, just like you are!Domiy (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
DONE - Reply to Peanut4 I've addressed the issues you bought up. Again in respective order:
The dates have already been fixed up and are consistent in the current version. If you find some other instances of such, please point it out specifically. But from what I see, they should be fine now.
References are all after punctuation now.
Cited volatility in the lead.
Suker's goal is already cited at the end of the sentence.
'12 yard mark' has been hyphenated, it now reads '12-yard mark'.
Reworded to 'officiating'.
Full names now given for the new young players.
Images are fine, they have not been forced, not sure exactly what you mean about such.
Is there anything further or can we deem this in support now? Domiy (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The dates are far from fixed. There is a complete mish-mash of date first, e.g. 26 August 2008, or month first e.g. August 26, 2008. I can't provide specific examples, because it can interchange from section-to-section. Peanut4 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The source does not corborate the claim "Their FIFA World Ranking has been more volatile than any other nation," it simply backs up the range of 3rd to 125th. I find the initial part an interesting claim and worthy of mention if true, but I can't see any source in the article to back it up. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done the images. Some even had two different image sizes marked. Peanut4 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
DONE - Reply to Peanut4
I'm sorry, I didn't notice the dates in the 'Records' section and others. They and others have all been fixed up now to consistently go by the same format (thanks for your help there as well in some of the other areas).
Extra sources have now been included to cite the volatility specifically.
Thanks for the image fixup!
I'm glad that your issues are Done now. Unless there is anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced those extra sources back up the claim still. Peanut4 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Peanut4 - It may be hard to determine such in 100% accuracy. You will never find an article which directly states than a nation has been more volatile than any other. The statement has come from heavy research and self knowledge of the editors. The sources provided make it much easier to understand such, and they do practically imply it:
The Croats have got the wind in their sails once again as they gradually work their way back up into the elite, as a glance at the most recent edition of the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking shows. Despite a mere 4.5 million inhabitants, this country from the Adriatic coast has jumped from seventh to fifth place, overtaking South America's big two, Brazil and Argentina, in the process. - 1st reference.
Exactly two months ago before EURO 2008 got under way, Croatia were 15th in the world and looking to make it back into the top ten, a spot they had last occupied in January 2008. They managed this feat in July 2008 when they leapt up to seventh, and with Argentina and Brazil dropping points in the intervening weeks, the Croats find themselves in their best ranking since March 1999 - an indication of the progress that Bilic has made with this team. - 1st reference.
*It is not so long ago - March 1994 in fact - that Croatia were 125th in the world, and their average ranking is 28th, making the progress of this nation which only achieved independence on 25 June 1991 all the more remarkable. - 1st reference.
From July to December 1998, they were fourth in the world and crept as high as third during the first three months of 1999, so the new generation know that the record is well within their grasp. - 1st reference.
Yet less than a year ago, the critics were sharpening their knives after a disappointing campaign at the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™, when the team failed to make it past the group stage. The Croatian media described the early exit as a national tragedy and forecast nothing but doom and gloom for the country's football. Flying in the face of these naysayers, the team with the chequered jerseys have since gone on an unbeaten run in both the qualifiers for UEFA EURO 2008 and in friendlies. - 2nd reference.
This turnaround in fortunes has seen the men from the shores of the Adriatic go from 23rd in the Rankings in July 2006 to 12th in February 2007, their highest position since June 2000, when they were ninth. - 2nd reference.
That golden generation swept almost all before them between July 1998 and June 2000, firmly anchoring themselves in the top ten and peaking in 1999, when they occupied third place from January to March of that year. - 2nd reference.
Im sure you get it now. The articles state that they have variously jumped numerous times from rankings such as 125th, to 9th, to 4th, to 3rd, back to 12th and even worse after the 2006 World Cup, then to 7th and now to 5th. No other national team has such a volatile history in the rankings, few would disagree after reading the sources. FIFA describe it as a 'remarkable' feat, meaning that it is clearly one that stands out. These are the things that back up the volatility.
I'm really not convinced. You have had to use three sources and a long argument here to back up your claim throwing about a variety of numbers. While I find it an interesting statistic, I fear that nowhere does such exact information on volatility and the range of ratings exist, and hence is actually WP:OR. I'd simply remove the information and stick to verifiable facts that Croatia have twice been FIFA Ranking's biggest mover and ranged from 125th to 3rd. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it requires removal. I've gone ahead and re-worded the statement to something more specific and less challenged because you seem to be arousing all the craziest of possibilities (which is your right I guess). If you think that the statement may be challenged despite the references, I have little problems in re-wording it. I have now said that they are amongst the most volatile of nations in the FIFA world rankings, meaning that they are not specifically leading in the description.
My 'long argument' is basically a reworded summary of the content in the provided sources. You are right, no such exact information on volatility exists specifically in an article. Again, I'm telling you that it is the result of heavy research and slight self knowledge. I dont think WP specifically has to cater for some people's needs and difficulty to understand a subject. Volatility is clearly present in the sources provided and the sources themselves have explained it as a unique feat at the very least. Basically your giving me the idea that to satisfy your criteria in this case on this statement, I would have to find and include sources on the history of ALL national teams in the FIFA World Rankings. While I would have little trouble finding such, it would be completely inappropriate to have 100+ references on a single statement just to show that no other nation has been as volatile as Croatia. If this was the case, half the articles on Wikipedia could be torn apart with this criteria. The sources say they are uniquely rapid in their rising in the rankings, not so long ago they were ranked 125th and are currently 5th and have been as high as 3rd. If you look at all other national team pages, you will see that their rankings have been fairly stable. Italy have been in the top 10 for as long as anyone can remember, while San Marino have been amongst the bottom of the rankings since they began playing as a FIFA member. Anyone would know this as Italy just recently won the 2006 World Cup and San Marino have a worldwide reputation of never winning a match. Things like this are extremely commonly known, I'm just using a lot of arguments because you seem to lack the basic football knowledge, especially on the FIFA world rankings. They are known to be fairly stable and identical each time they are updated, so for any team to have jumped this much is an immediate sign that they are amongst the most volatile. Again, the statement has been slightly reworded to prevent further challenging. Domiy (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The current wording is now just about alright. My problem wasn't that I was not only questioning the truth and the sources, but that since such exact information didn't exist, it is original research. Croatia's lowest ranking of 125th was a nominal ranking given to FIFA upon the side's creation, if I'm reading the article correctly. In that case, I would say some of the African nations, who have jumped from the low 100s to near the top 10, could also claim the title you claim. Peanut4 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the exact same thing, specifically with African nations jumping high as well after their initial introduction. I guess the wording really helps now to convey the clearer message of such. And I dont mean to demand or beg, but is this deemed in your Support now or are there still any improvements you would like done? Domiy (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments regardingOppose per images (some may echo comments above):
The image page of the 1940 team picture states "Permission has been given to use it on here and nowhere else!" This is not permitted, the message on the image upload page (and probably found somewhere else but I can't put my hands on it right now) says "Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for "non-commercial" use, licensed only to Wikipedia, for which permission is required for reuse, or that do not permit derivative works to be created." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply to imagesYour asking for a source on the custom created common soccer field image. This itself is an extreme request, yet I provided a clear source which is Nuno Tavares, along with other appropriate information as to where the soccer field image came from. Next, you asked for a source on Maksimir Stadium. It has been clearly provided on the image page with absolutely nothing missing. It was obtained from WorldStadiums.com, who (as per the copyright link provided) give complete permission for anyone to publish or use their images as long as it is for a free purpose. ALl this has been backed up with references to their permission etc, and I distinctly remember being granted permission from one of their admins who pointed out that anyone is free to use them once again. The source is WorldStadiums.com. I dont know what more you need on these two images. I went through the trouble to find all relevant links and sources and yet you oppose on the grounds of...well...nothing clearly. The images have sources provided and yet you change to an oppose? Similarly, I provided information on when the Croatian first team image was taken. The only thing you see wrong with the article is the copyright tags, which I have clearly requested suggestions on but you have denied to help me. Please note that any comments, in support or opposition of featured articles, can rightfuly be ignored if there is no constructive benefit which offers a way to solve the issue. This is clearly the case. Why dont you just tell me which copyright tags need to be added to the images (if they are not already correct, which I feel they are) and then we can solve this issue? Instead, you go on and oppose for reasons which have already been solved! Domiy (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The preclusion of non-commercial, no derivatives, permission required, etc. is indeed policy, but is only applicable for "free" images. Images claiming a fair use justification, as this one is, are not impacted (they, by definition, carry one or more of these restrictions). We do, however, need to know from whence it came (WP:IUP vis-a-vis WP:NFCC#6), as I said above. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
DONE! All images tagged correctly with appropriate sources added.Domiy (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png - is author (Nuno Tavares) the same person as the uploader (Squadoosh (talk·contribs))? If not, how can we confirm Nuno Tavares has released this image to the public domain? The copyright tag is also incorrect; this image is not PD ineligible.
You'll have to excuse me as I said earlier, I have somewhat smaller knowledge on images and copyrights. But alas I do have enough. Yes, Nuno Tavares is the same Wikipedia user who uploaded the photo. Since you seem to be worried about a possible copyright infirgement in some bizzare way, please read the tag which IS appropriate as another user already said. "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Pretty much says it all itself. The user who created and uploaded it takes no copyright towards it as it is a common content image which is ineligible for such. And again, since I am vague on copyright tags, perhaps you could just notify me as to which tag is most appropriate? You can determine this by looking at the copyright links provided, and noting that permission has been given to use the images on any domain so long as it abides by the basic copyright laws listed. What is the most appropriate tag for such? Domiy (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the constructive efforts btw. Glad we got this sorted. Just waiting to see if there is anything else? Domiy (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Problems (not a support, not really an oppose, but yes, these keep it from being an FA) - 1) Image:Croatian_first_team.jpg is on the left and formats a second level header incorrectly and sandwiches it against the infobox. 2) I believe the length of your captions could cause problems. 3) Your templates at the bottom should be in the "closed" position starting out. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.