Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The list was withdrawn by Dr Salvus via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Coppa Italia finals[edit]

List of Coppa Italia finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

In your opinion, the page satisfies the FL Criterias? Dr Salvus (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate it for the featured list because in my opinion it meets all the criteria to become Featured List. After proposing the appointment a few days ago I made many changes and I also asked for the peer review. Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural issues
I'm disappointed (but not too surprised) that you have nominated this again already. I wonder whether you have actually read and understood "all the criteria to become Featured List", as you seem to have trouble with instructions, with opening and closing nominations and requests for peer review. For example, the list in question is not what I would call Stable (Criterion 6), as it was just considerably reworked in the last 26 hours before your nomination.
You say you "also asked for the peer review", but where is it? Why did you give up on it? "Asking" means nothing if you don't wait for it to happen. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating a list right after reworking it isn't that bad if no one else is editing it, but yeah, the nomination itself wasn't done right or put in the right spot. The PR is here; it does not appear to be closed, which should be done prior to nominating, and in fact has comments as recently as yesterday. Dr Salvus you need to either close the PR or close this FLC, and please either follow the instructions at WP:PR or make a clear statement here for closing, don't just remove the talk page template. --PresN 18:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I closed the PR request. I'd like you to declare yourself for or against. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not closed the PR. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnFromPinckney: I have poor English. I know grammar well but I don't have an extensive vocabulary. There is that he can be wrong. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:  Done

Please tell me if you agree or disagree? Possibly if you are against it, please explain the motivation. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please tell me if the page satisfies the criterias for becoming a Featured List. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are typically open for weeks before getting enough reviews to be closed. Asking three times in the first day for people to review is not going to help. --PresN 23:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You did not initiate this nomination correctly. When you open a nomination, you should create the page by selecting "initiate the nomination" from the FL header on the talk page. This generates a page with links to the tools to help analyze the article's quality. Also, it appears from this diff that you deleted the original FL nomination header on the talk page. This is a problem, as there is now no record of the first nomination on the talk page. I would urge you to immediately withdraw this nomination, and please listen to the advice people are giving and read the FLC guidelines thoroughly before attempting another nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123:  Done
@PresN: - the nominator has now re-created the FLC at the correct location of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2 (I didn't notice last night that the title of this one was malformed) - does this one need archiving in some way? Merging/redirecting to the new one? Or just leaving here? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually my fault- the nomination was at the wrong spot (no /archive2) and then I moved it with a double-'Wikipedia:'. Now fixed, this is the only nomination. At this point I think we've finally sorted out the procedural issues, so I'm going to collapse these comments so it can start over with comments towards the list itself. --PresN 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus: You cannot delete other users' comments from an FLC, as you did here. This is unacceptable behavior for any talk page or discussion. I have added the comments back. While I am willing to accept on good faith that this may have been an accident, if it happens again, I will be forced to oppose on a procedural basis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: I apologize. I made an error in good faith. I got confused in something. I didn't understood what I had to do. Please leave comments about this page. Are you for or against about the nomination of the page for FL?
In terms of the actual article, sourcing is still a major concern.
  • Source 1 is from AlterVista, which allows anyone to make their own website, so we don't know if it is reliable.
  • Source 2 says nothing about Serie B, Serie C, and Serie D teams, so it isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
  • Source 3 is about this year's championship, not past years' championships, so it also isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
  • Source 6 is a book from 2004, so even if it verifies everything before that (I'm assuming it does, but I can't check because I don't have the ISBN, which you should probably add), it leaves the last 15 or so years unsourced.
  • Source 7 contradicts the article and cites Wikipedia, so it is no good. (This was pointed out to you in the peer review.)
Other issues:
  • There are no images; per WP:FLCR #5b, you should probably add one or two.
  • I'm not a fan of writing the team names twice in years with two legs in the finals. At a quick glance, it gives the wrong impression that the team won two years in a row. I would suggest merging the team names in those years to span both rows.
  • Don't use rows that span multiple columns, as in 1937–38, 1940–41, and so on. This causes accessibility and sorting issues. If you need to explain something, put it in an existing box or in a footnote. (The exception is 1926–27, since there was no final.)
If you're looking for similar FL examples, I would suggest looking at List of FA Cup Finals and List of Super Bowl champions as a starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Hi. I made some edits. Is the page ready for FL, or it need of more edits? Unfortunatley I did not find the ISBN of the book I've cited. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Salvus: - seriously, you don't need to keep asking over and over again if people think the article is ready for FL. People will support it if they think it's ready, you don't need to keep asking everyone the question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've made some changes, but not everything that I noted was fixed. Right away, I noticed there are still rows spanning multiple columns that cause sorting issues and you did not remove source 1 even though its reliability is unclear (in other words, not acceptable for a FL). Also, the new source 5 does not appear reliable, and the attendance numbers for recent tournaments are still unverified. Additionally, the image does not have alt text, which it needs for accessibility reasons.
When it comes to sourcing, don't just find a random website listing the information you need to verify. You need to use reliable sources – official league or tournament websites, or websites for newspapers and magazines, are ideal. You also must have clear sources for everything in the list. You may not be able to find a single reliable source listing all of the information in the table for every tournament; in that case, find source for individual matches. Is it more work? Absolutely – but FLs aren't easy to do properly; they require a lot of time and research to be thoroughly sourced and verified. Please don't rush this; take the time to find everything you need. That ISBN, for instance, has to be out there somewhere; don't say you can't find it after only a few hours of work. (For reference, my current FL nominee has 172 references, and it took me about a month of dedicated work and research to get it from here to here.) If this needs to happen, maybe you should withdraw the nomination and take the time to find all of those sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the image you used is taken from Getty Images, meaning it is not free to use. I have removed the link here and will be deleting the image from Wikimedia Commons shortly. You cannot add copyrighted images to an article without a detailed explanation of why the image is necessary and why there are no alternatives available, which you have not done here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The photo caption should be "The Coppa Italia trophy" (no 's)
  • There should not be a space between the end of the second sentence and the ref
  • "Since the first final of the 1922 season between Vado and Udinese" => "Since the first final between Vado and Udinese in 1922" (and no need to link the 1922 season again, you already linked it two sentences earlier)
  • There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the second paragraph
  • "Juventus holds the record" => "Juventus hold the record"
  • "Milan lost the greatest" => "Milan have lost the greatest"
  • There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the third paragraph
  • "The final match with the highest number of scored goals" => "The highest-scoring final"
  • "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, where Sampdoria won 6–1" => "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, which Sampdoria won 6–1"
  • The refs immediately after that should be in correct numerical order
  • There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref after "Juventus in 2020"
  • No need to link Juventus again in the last sentence of the lead
  • Refs after the final sentence of the lead should be in correct numerical order
  • Refs at the top of each table should be in correct numerical order
  • There should not be a full stop after "edition not completed" in 1926-27
  • Why were there no finals between 1922 and 1927, between 1927 and 1936, and between 1943 and 1957? This should be explained somewhere, probably in the lead
  • If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below
  • I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s
  • Ref 1 is some random person's blog - not a reliable source
  • UEFA.com is not the author of ref 7
  • Date format is different in different refs
  • Quite a bit of work to do, I'm afraid...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:

I made the edits that you advised me. Thank you. I've not understood very well these two comments.
  • If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below (what do you mean?)
    • If you sort on the "winners" column, and then sort on "season" so that they go back into date order, the row saying "Internazionale won 2–1 on aggregate." for 1981-82 appears below the results of the two matches, but the row saying "2–2 on aggregate: Roma won 4–2 on penalties after extra time." for 1980-81 appears above the results of the two matches??? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s (data about the numbers of spectators for each final from the 1980s to today are present) -- Dr Salvus (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant is that I find it implausible there is no available source for the attendance at the final in, for example, 1986, given that List of FA Cup Finals has (sourced) attendance figures right back to the 1870s.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much. I would like know if the page will be suitable for FL when I will find the data about attendance and when I'll make the adjustment which you've advised? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Dr Salvus, we know you would like to know if the page will be suitable for FL, because you keep asking. This is the 6th time you've explicity asked on this page, not counting the nomination itself (or your first nomination). As you have already been told twice: Don't keep asking. Rather, read about the FL process in the blue box at the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates.
        And no, when you have made all of the changes suggested by ChrisTheDude, you need to address the concerns raised by RunningTiger123. There may be more editors looking at the list you've nominated, and they will probably raise other issues. Be patient, and let the process play out. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Dr Salvus (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does who mean by what? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • There are still lots of spaces between full stops and references, something I pointed out above
  • "and 1943 from 1957" should be "and from 1943 to 1957"
  • "the competition was not concluded on 1926–27" => "the competition was not concluded in 1926–27"
  • "Finals matches of Coppa Italia" (above the table) => "Coppa Italia finals" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Salvus: - do you plan to return and address the outstanding comments, some of which are ten days old? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:. I did not edit the page because I have not find informations about the attendance of final matches Dr Salvus (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment
  • Since I commented above, there has been a fresh round of editing, and now the big table (the matches) has no references at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this nomination should probably be withdrawn for the time being. While the formatting has seen significant improvements, there are still issues with sourcing, and given the nominator's apparent struggle to find sources (see here), I don't think it'll have all of the citations it needs in a reasonable timeframe. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to confirm, if sources genuinely aren't available for the crowds at the finals where this info is currently missing then I will strike any objection on that basis, and the other issues seem reasonably easily fixable. But it just seems implausible to me that crowd figures for the final of the national cup in one of the world's leading football nations in the not-too-distant past aren't available..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ChrisTheDude: Until the 1980s, the smaller teams hoped to be eliminated from the cup as soon as possible to focus only on the championship. This indicates the lack of importance that the tournament had. Here is the cause as to why there is not much data on spectators in stadiums Dr Salvus (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think he's talking about the recent finals, which are more significant and should have sources for their attendances. In other words, there may not be sources for attendance for finals from the 1930s (though I would still encourage you to look for it), but there should definitely be sources for recent decades. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @RunningTiger123: Data about finals from 1980s to today are present Dr Salvus (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Dr Salvus:: Correct, but you don't have any sources for this information, so it's not acceptable in its current state. Everything in FLs (and on Wikipedia in general) that might be challenged has to be sourced. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @RunningTiger123: Sources are from non-live web sites. Are these OK for FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Dr Salvus: Yes, as long as the original website is accessible through some online archiving service. Readers have to be able to access the resource somehow; if there is no remaining record of the website, it will not work. The websites still have to pass all standards for reliability as well (i.e. no self-published sources). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (stopped indenting as it was getting silly) Which source do you mean? The only ref currently against the table is the Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio, which looks OK but doesn't cover the last 16 years..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I can add the sources for period from 2005 to today Dr Salvus (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RunningTiger123 and ChrisTheDude: I add the sources. Is the page ready for FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not familiar with calcio.com, which appears to be the Italian version of worldfootball.net. I'm generally inclined to think it's reliable, but I'm really not sure; I'll have to do more research unless someone else knows more about it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regard to whether the page is ready for FL: There are still changes that were suggested weeks ago that have not been addressed. For example, I mentioned issues regarding rows spanning multiple columns and the issues they create for sorting; this has not been fixed yet. Please reread everyone's comments and make sure all of our suggestions have been implemented. Once you're done making changes, we'll give our support or oppose the nomination in accordance with FLC policy. I would encourage you to not ask if the list is ready for FL status every time you make a change; we'll know if it's ready, and we'll tell you when that happens. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Coppa_Italia_finals/archive2&oldid=1011638904"