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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Gibraltar national football team results

Featured list candidates/Gibraltar national football team results/archive1

Nominator(s): 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a full list of official matches played by the Gibraltar national football team since their acceptance into UEFA that I believe meets the FL criteria. The matches are grouped by the years they were played making it easy to navigate. As they started in 2013 there will be no need to split the article for a few years yet. Each entry is comprehensively detailed and referenced (one ref tag and a link to an external match report).

It is my first time nominating an article for featured status but I am prepared to do what I can. I did get the article peer reviewed first where Aza24 was kindly able to help. I look forward to the responses. — 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*"It's governing body" => "Its governing body" (it's means "it is")

"They first applied for UEFA membership" - not 100% clear who "they" are
"On 13 May 2016, Gibraltar was accepted [.....] after their original" - subject treated as both singular and plural within the same sentence
"These are the official results of the Gibraltar national football team since being accepted into UEFA in 2012" - the lead says this occurred in 2013
"Matches played before obtaining UEFA membership and unofficial matches and are not included." - this sentence does not make sense the first "and" should be "are"
- Completed all of the above --6ii9 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the list format is totally different to existing similar FLs, such as the recently-promoted Wales national football team results (1946–1959)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An advantage to using the football box template is it allows more information to be included (similar to the Faroe Islands results list that is currently an FL). If it is needed to be in table form I can convert. --6ii9 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That list was promoted ten years ago, so doesn't necessarily indicate current consensus. I'll leave this out here to see what other people think....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - WikiProject Football has its own manual of style, and looking at this section, it seems that the accepted way to list match results is with those templates. Also, I quickly scanned through similar lists in Category:National association football team results by team, and everything I saw as I scanned through them (minus the Welsh lists) uses that formatting, so I'm pretty much certain it's the standard. It does mean there is no sorting functionality, but I'm personally okay with it because it allows much more information to be included about individual matches that would either disappear or be awkwardly included in a list like the Welsh lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - While the collapsible format seems to have become the most prevalent, this is likely due to the majority being mass produced by a minority of editors. The most recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL largely suggested that the table format is actually more favourable as it is far more inline with WP:ACCESS. Kosack (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while my personal preference would be for the article not to contain dozens of collapsible templates, if it is deemed an acceptable format I am not going to oppose based on that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Kosack's comment, I'm going to have to oppose on the tables. The collapsible tables may allow you to contain more information, but they do not meet WP:ACCESS. Users who need screen readers to use Wikipedia will not be able to read the page as well as users who are normal sighted. Kosack links to the discussion at WP:FOOTY which suggests that the tables used in the Wales ar preferable because they meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS. Unfortunately, as long as those tables are in use, I can't support the promotion of this list. NapHit (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table looks in much better shape now, struck my oppose based on that. I think the key needs to be in a table too. Look at the Wales lists for an example. I am concerned about the references though. Firstly you need to use en dashes instead of the standard dashes for scorelines. Ref 13 is an example. Secondly, it's questionable whether some of the references are reliable or not. What makes yourgilbraltartv and footballgibraltar.wordpress.com reliable? NapHit (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of work has gone into the list since this comment. The sources have been replaced and I've gone through and fixed the dash issue. Happy to support now. NapHit (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Sorry I missed your original comments. Also thank you for sorting the dash issue. --6ii9 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - Looking through the article, I do think that the table format is suitable in this featured list scenario as WP:ACCESS is a massive issue from this getting past the featured list challenge. I also do think that adding the cards is a bit of an overkill as you don't see many other articles (if any) in the national results section have the cards as well as the goals.

In terms of prose, I do feel its fine except the last three sentences in the prose as why is that needed here as that doesn't relate to the article either. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewrote the final paragraph to remove the sentences unrelated to the article. --6ii9 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through, you have improved this a lot more better to switch my vote into a support HawkAussie (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now converted the collapsible boxes into a table. --6ii9 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but on my computer the score column cells are black-colored, which doesn't appear to be the intention and makes it hard for me to read the scores. I suggest changing the formatting to be like the Wales list linked above, as the colors appear without issue for me on that page.
- @Giants2008: I do not have this issue. I have looked at the Wales list above and cannot see why that one renders correctly for you but this one does not. I can only assume it is the colours being used. 6ii9 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made this table comparing the colours used in each of the lists. Are any of these cells rendering as black-coloured? --6ii9 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - For me, the Gibralter win and loss cells, and the Wales draw cell, are black. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've used the colours that should now stop rendering as black. --6ii9 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colour comparison
Result	Wales	Gibraltar
Win	1–0	1–0
Loss	0–1	0–1
Draw	1–1	0–0

~~Note b needs "to" before "the coronavirus pandemic."~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the missing "to" in note b. --6ii9 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"which was rejected" on what grounds?
- Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for full membership" was partial membership a thing?
- Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"friendlies" link.
- Moved the link to the first mention of "friendlies" in the intro. --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in Faro/Loulé," this is odd so I'd explain it a tiny bit.
- Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" in Faro/Loulé, Portugal which " comma after portugal.
- Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"which became their official debut." Gibraltar's official debut.
- Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth noting in the lead how it ended.
- Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Gibraltar entered its first major international competition:" how did it go?
- Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" joint largest victory" I'm not sure 1-0 and 2-1 are equitable here, and in any case, it's the minimal "winning margin" possible!
- On the Gibraltar national football team article's infobox, it lists the 1–0s and the 2–1 as their biggest wins. Indeed it is the minimal winning margin but Gibraltar have failed to win by more than one goal yet. --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Att column should be right-aligned.
- Done --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Gibraltar scorers" also "time of goal".
- Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check all the sources for "behind closed doors" actually mention it. E.g. ref 59 for match 47 doesn't mention attendance at all.
- The attendances are covered in the statistics within the reference section, the note on the main table header says "table information sourced from the references listed in the statistics section below". --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Score column sorts peculiarly, I'd expect it to start with "best wins" then go through draws to "worst losses".
- At the moment it sorts by the number of goals scored by Gibraltar (then by the numbers of goals they conceded). Would it make more sense to sort by the result of the match (i.e. sort by wins, then draws, and then losses)? --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thinking about this, what if we added an extra column for the results, i.e. Win, Draw or Loss. Then this can be sorted to show all the wins together, all the draws and all the losses? --6ii9 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are the flags necessary?
- I believe flags are necessary (MOS:FLAG), they are always used when football teams are listed (including in featured lists) . --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Compare ref 2 BBC Sport with ref 3 BBC Sport format.
- Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scorelines in ref titles should be en-dashes.
- Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA.com or FIFA?
- Used FIFA --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link publishers always or not?
- Linked publishers where they have articles. Can remove all links if needed. --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheGuardian.com or The Guardian?
- Used The Guardian --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid using Daily Mirror. Not particularly RS.
- Replaced --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quick pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick skim on sources:

what makes yourgilbraltartv and footballgibraltar.wordpress.com reliable sources? They appear to be minor blogs
- Replaced them both --6ii9 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also not recognizing CaughtOffside
- Replaced --6ii9 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El Pais isn't link, and one link to Eurosport is malformed
- Added link to the former and fixed the link to the latter --6ii9 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks not done

--Pres N 16:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the sorting of the score column to go win-draw-loss based on what the Wales national football team results (1960–1979) FLC is doing; revert if you dislike. In either case, source review passed, promoting. --Pres N 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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