Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IFK Göteborg
Self-nom. I've been working on this article since I started editing Wikipedia a year ago and I have come to a point where I think I can't improve it much more. It has gone through a peer review pretty recently and I believe the few problems pointed out there were fixed. There was no answer on my question about the status of the images used, but if anyone believes that there is a problem with them, I can take a few photos on my own (next time they play at home, meaning 9/10 July) and replace the current ones. It is definitely time for a football club article to become an FA. -- Elisson | Talk 30 June 2005 14:38 (UTC)
Mild Objection. 2 points: First, I've never heard of this football team although I've been watching sports news for 14 years. Second, the existence of too many redlinks in the article makes it uneasy to read.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:16:18 (UTC)- Is there a criterion for an FA article to be known by everybody? You might want to read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and do your judgement after the criteria listed there, as I see no mention there that the FA itself needs to be notable enough to everybody. Just to let you know a few reasons as to why IFK Göteborg isn't any random club; it is one of the three most classic Swedish football (soccer) clubs (if not the most classic, but I won't write that as it might be considered to be POV). Except bring 17 times Swedish Champions, the club is also a two-times UEFA Cup winner (1982, 1987), UEFA Champions League semi-finalist in 1986, three times quarter-finalists (1985, 1989, 1995), and four time participants in the group stage of the same tournament (1992-1993, 1994-1995, 1996-1997, 1997-1998), and also runners-up of the Scandinavian Championship (Royal League) this season. I understand your point about redlinks, although they are almost exclusively (except for four in the history section) present in the later "listings" sections, with links to players and managers. The links to these articles can easily be removed (or created by me later) if there is more support for it. -- Elisson | Talk 30 June 2005 16:27 (UTC)
- Support, good article. When it was on peer review, I read it several times and it seems sound to me. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2
30 June 2005 16:56 (UTC) - Support. The peer review was fairly extensive, and a lot of work was done on this excellent article. (I got to help!) --Scimitar 30 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)
Oppose. The copyright status of Image:Ifkgoteborg1958.jpg should be clarified. (Note that I'll be out of town until late Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then.)--Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)- Is that one image the only reason for your objection? File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 1 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
- Right now, yes. I may have further objections when I get a chance for a thorough reading -- or I might not. Since the other votes are in support, I probably won't. --Carnildo 1 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
- How should it be clarified? I marked it {{fairold}} when I uploaded it, which is a more specific image tag than for example {{fairuse}}. The pic is from 1958, the photographer is unknown. I'd actually want to know how I can clarify the copyright status of it, just saying it should be clarified does not give much help. Would substituting the picture against Image:Ifkgoteborg1905.jpg help? It has the same tag, and an unknown photographer, but it is much older. -- Elisson | Talk 1 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)
- Is that one image the only reason for your objection? File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2
- Turning Neutral from Objection. After reading this article again one day after my previous objection was made, I could see that the author of this article has shown improvement. Deryck C. 2005-07-01 14:24:51 (UTC)'
- Support. Very good article, sets a standard for all sporting clubs to match on Wikipedia. Harro5 July 7, 2005 00:32 (UTC)
