Wikipedia:Peer review/Croatia national football team/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Croatia national football team[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because is has recently been largely increased in quality. Though not a successful football team when compared to some other greater nations, it is still very well known in the sport and the article is very unique for its category. It involves such statistics and historical information that other great articles do not have (eg - first ever competitive loss, first competitive goalscorer, and even a statistical records section of all home games played and statistical records of all recent managers etc.)

Very well written, I myself have read it many times and come to the personal conclusion that there is not one minor detail in the history of this football team that has been left out. All relevant information is included, plus additional and unique extras. The lead page is the main of it, I think that is the only thing (if anything) that may possibly diminish the articles chances of becoming a featured article. I really dont see nothing wrong with it, but I am open to all types of suggestions and critical reviews. Anything that may be wrong with it, just mention it.

If its any help to your reviewing, another national football team article that is on the featured article list is the Scotland national football team.

Thanks, Domiy (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Hi there, although it is an article that appears to include all necessary information, there are no references to back things up. Every challengable fact needs a footnote to support it. There must be many 1st party sources to back things up, as well as websites, books etc? rocketman89 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I have to strongly object. There ARE references included in the article. Since, as the article states, Croatia has only had an active team since 1991, there isnt a need for sources as strong as say for the Scottish team page (which is already a featured article). But other than that, the majority of things stated on the page do have references to them. The only thing that wouldn't have a reference is the section explaining football in Croatia during the 1940's. Thats pretty much impossible, you will never find a reference that can back up the SIMPLE fact that football was played in Croatia during this time. Its an assumed fact, just like one would assume that the sum of $8million does exist, even though they have never seen it before and have only heard it of others.

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)[edit]

I have to agree with the comment above, the article is massively short on references. You say "there isnt a need for sources as strong as say for the Scottish team page" - I don't see why this would be the case at all. There might not need to be quite as many refs (numerically speaking) for a team with a much shorter history, but the fact that this team has a shorter history doesn't mean that things don't need referencing at all. For example....."Croatia are still undefeated in all competitive games played at Maksimir Stadium" - source? "At many times however, the Croatian fans have been the centre of harshly accused racist behaviour." - source? "Their singing of the national anthem at the opening group game against Brazil was also voted by FIFA as Moment of the day." - source? "More throughout the years, domestic bands such as Dino Dvornik, Zaprešić boys, Prljavo kazalište, Baruni and others composed many singles in support of the national team." - source? "This was done under the chaotic guidance of Graham Poll who was largely criticized for his inability to control the match." - source? This is just a selection, there are many many more examples. There are also problems with the quality of the English and some POV statements like "Croatia went on to excel amazingly", but these can be corrected fairly easily. The issue with the references, however, is a massive stumbling block and, unless it is addressed, the article has 0% of success at WP:FAC....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for the accurate advice. I will go ahead and add references to every advanced statement I can find and then request that it be re-reviewed. I've already done so to a large majority of the article.

Domiy (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)