Talk:Luka Modrić/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luka Modrić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will take on this review. C 679 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
frequent lack of good grammar, unclear prose etc.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
words to watch are present throughout the article.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
checklinks shows fn3,17,22,14,36, 99 and 80 as dead or likely dead. fn20, 71, 82 and 83 are also unreachable at the time of writing. Statistics section is unreferenced aside from "international goals".

C. No original research:
Despite having 100+ references, many parts are unreferenced, appearing to be original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Various parts are written from a fan's POV.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article has been under pending changes restrictions since 2 January 2014.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
File:Tottenham warmup, Wigan Athletic v Tottenham Hotspur, 21st February 2010.jpg does not have a suitable caption. File:Luka Modric (L), João Moutinho (R) - Croatia vs. Portugal, 10th June 2013.jpg has a stray comma in the caption. File:Luka Modric - Croatia vs. Portugal, 10th June 2013 (4).jpg does not have a suitable caption.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It is clear that the prose is a long way from meeting GA criteria. I recommend addressing the issues raised in this review, then requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors before thinking about another nomination. C 679 08:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Prose issues (non-exhaustive list):

Grammar

Modrić is a Croatian international (grammar) Done
He has since participated in three major tournaments; 2006 FIFA World Cup, and UEFA Euro 2008 and 2012. Done
and at the Euro 2008 was included in the UEFA "Team of the Tournament", becoming only the second Croatian to ever achieve this honour.
His grandfather Luka and other six civilians Done
At the time of the aggression, Modrić, as refugee, lived in a hotel in Zadar, with his family. Done
It was in these difficult circumstances that Modrić began playing football. (also POV) Done
Supported by his family, he managed to participate in few representative camps, and train in NK Zadar,[9] and after displaying some talent, Luka signed with Dinamo Zagreb as a 16-year old in 2002.[3] (split into two sentences. What are "representative camps"? Done
His competitive Premier League's debut (grammar) Done
He scored his first Premier League goal against Newcastle United in Spurs' away defeat on 21 December 2008, home win in the third round of FA Cup against Wigan on 2 January 2009, and in away defeat against Manchester United on 25 April 2009. (doesn't make sense, needs extra references) Done
Modrić scored his first Tottenham competitive goal in a 2–2 draw against Spartak Moscow during the UEFA Cup group stages on 18 December 2008. (also chronological order) Done

Context

He scored his first international goal in the friendly match against Italy, (context) Done
He simultaneously entered the primary school (context) Done
In 2005, Modrić signed his first long-term contract with Dinamo, for ten years. After a goalless first season, he managed to secure a place in Dinamo's first team, contributing 7 goals in 31 matches to help win the league. (which seasons are being referred to here?) Done
he was loaned out in 2003 to Zrinjski Mostar (link loaned) Done
on away goals (link)

Using full names

Luka Modrić was born in SR Croatia, then a republic within SFR Yugoslavia. Done

Use plain English

Modrić lost his grandfather Done

POV

Frequent POV throughout the article. Examples below:
He finished his impressive six-year tenure at Dinamo (POV) Done
With the appointment of manager Harry Redknapp, Modrić was given a more familiar advanced attacking role as a central or left-sided midfielder, which had been a problem position for Tottenham in the past. In the first few months of the 2008–09 season until the 2009 January transfer window, Modrić assumed a far more advanced role as a second striker behind one of Tottenham's two recognised first-team strikers, Roman Pavlyuchenko or Darren Bent. This allowed Modrić to have a far more attacking influence on the team and also utilise his footballing brain more productively, as in the thrilling 4–4 draw with arch-rivals Arsenal on 26 October 2008.[26] (fn26 only supports the scoreline, the rest is more POV) Done
During the January 2009 transfer window, Tottenham re-signed strikers Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane, allowing Modrić to return to midfield while retaining his advanced attacking role as a roaming left-sided midfielder. Spurs' other major signing, tough-tackling Honduran midfielder Wilson Palacios, bolstered Spurs' central midfield and gave Modrić more freedom in attack, while Palacios operated as a more defensive midfielder. Using him in his former position from Dinamo Zagreb days made him even more effective with inspirational performances against Stoke City (reads like a fansite, more POV and lacking references as well as objectivity) Done
Modrić's impact in this position was well demonstrated with Tottenham's fourth and equalising goal when he collected the ball on his chest from Tom Huddlestone, and after a few controlled touches, unleashed a long-range half-volley which, courtesy of a deflection, hit the post and set up Aaron Lennon for a tap-in. Since this performance, his form improved considerably for Spurs, coinciding with his club's vastly improved form in the league. (more unattributed POV) Done
Modrić finally returned to training after numerous delays on 8 December in a match against Grays Athletic. He made his first start in the Premier League for four months in the London derby against West Ham United, which Spurs won 2–0, with Modrić making a telling contribution by scoring with the leg he broke in the 11th minute. He again scored in home win against Everton on 28 February, and away defeat against Burnley in the last season's game on 9 May 2010. (more POV, fan-style writing and unreferenced) Done

Referencing

and was also the Premier League's first summer transfer. (not referenced) Done
ex-Spurs captain Jamie Redknapp (not referenced, not even on Redknapp's page) Done
On 11 September 2010, Modrić scored his first goal of the 2010–11 season with a 27th minute strike which put Tottenham 1–0 up away at West Bromwich Albion. The match finished in a 1–1 draw after Chris Brunt equalised. During the match, Modrić sustained an injury which was feared to be a repeat of the broken leg injury he sustained in the 2009–10 season. Scans later revealed there to be no damage, however. On 28 November, in a home match against Liverpool, Modrić scored a solitary goal, but it was later credited as an own-goal goal by Liverpool defender. (unreferenced) Done
During this time, Modrić rapidly established his role as playmaker or designated left winger in the team's 4–2–3–1 formation.[citation needed] (outstanding cn tag dated February 2013, looks like a difficult sentence to verify) Done
the 2006 World Cup section is completely unreferenced Done

Other issues

helping the team to achieve 2nd position in the Croatian first league (second, league title should have capitalisation and be linked as it is the first mention) Done
and a place in UEFA Cup (now Europa League) preliminary round (the UEFA Cup, + link, now Europa League is not relevant as it refers only to the specific edition of the competition)
a brace (jargon) Done
contributing most notably in the 2007–08 season when Dinamo became champions by a 28-point margin and won the Croatian Cup in the same year. (this information should go before the previous clause) Done
Initially, Spurs used him as a deep-lying playmaker in central midfield, usually alongside Jermaine Jenas, to utilise his passing range, vision, and creativity to optimum effect. Then-manager Juande Ramos, however, deployed him in an extremely deep defensive midfield role, which his slight frame was not physically suited to. Before joining Tottenham, his greatest success had come in a more advanced, attacking left-sided role; playing him out of position limited his influence. Modrić also suffered from a niggling knee injury early in his Spurs career (none of this is referenced, further at least some is not verifiable) Done

GOCE review

@Baffle gab1978: here will note or correct the copy-edits:

[1] - "Modrić made his debut a Croatian international player", did you intend "Modrić made his debut as Croatian international player"? Done
[2] - the info "...in the hamlet Modrići of the village Zaton Obrovački near Zadar..." should be included in the article as correctly shows where he was born and raised. In Croatia some small hamlets although having its own name and exact geographical location, are often administratively included in near big village (which was not always the historical case). Thus, Modrić was born and raised in the hamlet Modrići of the village Zaton Obrovački near Zadar, as the sources state. Done
[3] - it should be a space between "academyTomislav", removed "Bašić[which?]}" - Domagoj was the son of Tomislac Bašić, and both were important figures in his early football life, Modrić himself went to their funeral. That's why are mentioned in the article.--Crovata (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Done

Hi Crovata; thanks for your comments here, 1) yes I made a typo, will fix; 2) I was generalising; is it important to state the exact location of his childhood home? 3) thanks; it was unclear which person named Bašić was speaking. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Baffle gab1978: 3) about the account was speaking Tomislav Bašić 2) in every biography the exact location, if there's correct information, is welcomed to be included. This is not a trivial information, like address or house size (some articles even have that info; his home was put on fire during the war, and later rebuilt, but that's a trivia to me, a bit too much). Think it improves the article. Lets say that some international journalist, who doesn't understand Croatian language to read those Croatian sources, goes on the terrain to find the place of his birth, perhaps even home. He will take a photo of the wrong settlement sign (Zaton Obrovački instead of Modrići), settlement panorama, perhaps even of the house.--Crovata (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you think its important i'll re-add it; I'm giving up for the night. Wikipedia is not responsible for international journalists who don't understand Croatian. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Spurs, not the Spurs

L3X1, can you please stop changing "Spurs" to "the Spurs"? The club are known as Spurs, without the definite article - it's a British/American English thing. See Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, Britmax clued me in. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Luka Modrić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luka Modrić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Miki Filigranski, would you like to explain here why you whole sale reverted my edits? Your edit summary "revert of images by manual of style, too many and it doesn't look good nor the images were better, again redundant info in the lead compared to other footballers articles, most of the sources are not reliable" will not do. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The change and inclusion of the most of images made a style of the article to look different, considering revision history such a thing wasn't done before for a long time (partly accepted by me), several of them were not focused on him or were placed in an inappropriate section. The number of his goals is redundant and not included in the lead, especially should not in the first sentence, in the vast majority of other footballers. As for the "...and among the greatest Croatian footballers of all time [nb 2]", doubt the CroatiaWeek reliability as an opinion source, as well as of Stuff Magazine, and ESPN doesn't support such a statement, rather re-use already quoted references 226 and 227, then it makes more sense. As for the amount of the transfer fee, is that according to inflation or what? Best to keep it as it is without conversion to another value.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski firstly would you mind going on to the article and correct the raw source link that is just sitting there? A consequence of whole sale reverting. Okay, I see you fixed it. Here is my problem: I have been making dozens and dozens of edits and you reverted the vast majority of them. Not okay. Next step should be restoring the article (don't forget to leave your contributions about the 2018 World Cup, which were good) and tell me what you disagree with here. That way we can fix it appropriately. I agree with you on the following: remove the "greatest Croatian footballers of all time" part and lets see where to go from there. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

First discussion then we restore what we agree upon. Previous revision consensus is the basic point we move, not vice-versa. As I already said, are those two references RS? If not, it still can be reverted with the inclusion of reference 227 (basically there's no need of 226 because it's almost the same thing).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand how the process works, I'm just a bit concerned about your raised flags here and how you're going about fixing them. I'm sure most of them are RS but I'm sure one or two might be double dipping. Its really important that you understand that there is no such thing as "revision history consensus". There is only editor consensus and Wikipedia Policy. Just because someone has not added a picture in one section, doesn't mean someone else is not allowed to. Additionally, its completely fine and very common to add pictures of subjects that are not completely focused on them. You'll have to explain to me what is mean't by "inappropriate section" for images. We're also going to have to go over what "redundant" means when articles have policies for the lead section (MOS:LEAD) and infobox (H:IB). Furthermore, please take a read through MOS:LEADCITE which outlines when one does not have to cite (i.e. in the lead section). My point is this: if you revert to 00:04, 2 July 2018 and then add back your edits ("2018 World Cup: update") which were great by the way, we can finish this four times as fast. That way, you can say "take a look at this section, why is this picture there" and I can reply and we can decided wether or not it stays. This current method is going to be very time consuming. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the BRD process, we cannot suddenly move to WP:OWN type of behaviour where you or I will reply and decide whether or not it stays. It should be only done with regard to the revision consensus. Yes there's such a thing as the "revision history consensus" - it is WP:SILENCE, and such a consensus existed until your edits. The "inappropriate section" was referring to the two images in the "Honours" section, the first more adequate for Real Madrid's article, and the second not referring to any specific award (now included in "International career" section"). The information about his goals is simply redundant, and such information is not included in the biographies lead of footballers, it's simply not an editorial practice. I won't repeat myself on the statement issue since you hesitate to edit it back will do it myself so we can move forward.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski Lets get started. Firstly, WP:SILENCE is not a Wikipedia policy. Secondly, per Wiki, silence is the weakest form of consensus. Additionally that is not a justification for whole sale reversion. What I'm suggesting is called discussing what goes on an article, its kind of the basis of Wikipedia talk pages, it has nothing to do with the WP:OWN policy. Okay I can agree with the two images in the awards section as being better off else where. Now, before we move on to the 30+ edits you reverted, please explain what you mean by "editorial practice" and "information is not included in the biographies lead of footballers". Tell me why the information is redundant. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Policy or not, that's a form of consensus on Wikipedia which cannot be broken by your suggestion to revert to your revision which was reverted and you will decide whether or not it stays. Information is a statistical fact, basically a trivia, usually not mentioned in the lead of other prominent footballers, mostly except some attackers, but especially not in the paragraph of the first sentence, for example, see Andrea Pirlo, Xavi and so on. Alright, on some nice things we agreed upon and were included with some editing (lead sentence for being "among the greatest Croatian footballers of all time", lead transfer fee information, some images from the 2018 World Cup). Comparing revisions, is there something else? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay so you're jumping around here. That form of consensus and my choosing to restore first and work backwards are unrelated. Just because it is not mentioned in some articles about footballers doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned in other article of footballers. Just because the sentence "He has scored over 670 senior career goals for club and country" is on the Cristiano Ronaldo article and not on Neymar, doesn't mean the latter has to have it. The opposite is true. A footballer doesn't have to be a forward or an attacker for the sentence "He has scored over 70 senior career goals for club and country" (Luka Modric). If its not considered trivia on the Lionel Messi article, it shouldn't be considered trivia here. For example, if I were to come across Mario Götze, an attacking midfielder, I would't hesitate to add "He has scored over 60 senior career goals for club and country". Lets address the goal count issue first before moving on. LivinRealGüd (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronaldo and Messi are noted because of their goal-scoring records and it's more than a simple trivia in their case in comparison to the vast majority of footballers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There we go. Now thats a reason to keep the sentence out. Okay moving right along: why was the sentence "Luka Modrić is a Croatian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Spanish club Real Madrid and captains the Croatia national team... reverted to "Luka Modrić is a Croatian professional footballer who plays for Spanish club Real Madrid and is the captain of the Croatia national team...? LivinRealGüd (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

He is primarily a footballer and hence is more simple and understandable to the general audience to have explained his position in the subsequent sentence.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Every footballer is primarily a footballer. When I look at the roster at Real Madrid C.F.#Players, most of the 47 members of the ream have their registered position in the lead sentence. E.g. Keylor Navas is a Costa Rican professional footballer who plays as a goalkeeper... Dani Carvajal is a Spanish professional footballer who plays as a right back... Jesús Vallejo is a Spanish professional footballer who plays for Real Madrid as a central defender, etc. Why is Modrić different? LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They don't have the subsequent sentence about the position. If you insist that much and it is such a minor issue, then add "...who plays as a midfielder...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, next: why was the picture in the Tottenham Hotspur 2008–09 season section reverted to the current picture? LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The picture was from the 2010–11 season for which we already have a better one, while for 2008 another which also has him in the focus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, The current photo is really, really bad quality. The other one is of better quality and shows the subject in a different capacity. According to MOS:IMAGES, one does not need to have the subject "in focus" for images and images can be placed out of chronological order for illustrative purposes. For example, this picture rings close to the guidelines regarding MOS:PERTINENCE. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not the best, but also it is not of such a bad quality. We currently don't have a better image for the specific season (and "When possible, try to find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones"). In other words, you don't find the image suitable because of its quality for the article and would remove it? The description and context of the image (Modrić (far left), preparing for a penalty kick for Tottenham, 2010) is not really supported according to PERTINENCE as it says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative..." (see also WP:IMGDD "Don't add images that are not relevant"). The policy doesn't say anything about chronology, but considering the general practice of editing biographies (see for e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi), they should be placed chronologically in this kind of articles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, I removed the picture and replaced it with the alternative. How is my alternative not relevant or significant? Its a picture of Modric in-play with Spurs. Its primary purpose is not to be decorative but to supplement the given context. Take a look at Zinedine Zidane's club career section. The section has a date range from 2001 to 2012 with an image from 2003. Modric's Tottenham Hotspur section ranges from 2008 to 2012. Within the entire Hotspur section, the image can be placed, editors have not because of the abundance of alternatives. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is really pointless... Reverted the image. Let's move on, what's next? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, okay so in the next section, the Real Madrid 2012–13 season, I moved the photo of Modric with the Sevilla to the right to make use of the open white space and to balance out preceding quote box. I've seen the practice done on Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, and others. Why was it reverted to the left? LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote was a WP:SYNTH because the statement was made in the middle of the season (January 2014) and didn't have any mention of Modrić's passing accuracy. The wording is off. I am also not very fond of having such a quote there because we already have a section for that, "Reception", and the statement was already partly quoted there (Predrag Mijatović said Modrić became "Madrid's best player, with Ronaldo"). However, alright, considering the number of such quotes in other articles one exception could be constructive and moved the statement&reference to quote box. Also reverted the image with caption in "Reception", but kept it at left because the layout seems better that way, visually it weights to the left.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, Miki Filigranski: so, I think that image with Modric and Sevilla would be best placed at the top of the Real Madrid section (so dates line up) and a tad larger so it fills up space. Either way, moving on. So it seems like the Modrić playing in the 2015 UEFA Championships image was moved down, thats okay... my edit just moved it up a section. Doesn't look like he revert was too severe. This brings us to the international career. It looks like the image I put was replaced with a rather similar image and the caption remained the same, so I'm fine with that. Okay so later in this section, I put a small gallery of images (2) showing Modric with select players in international contestations... why was that reverted? It looks like the image of him kicking at the World Cup was moved down to the appropriate section, that works. But why was my gallery removed? LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The image with Sevilla cannot be placed at the top of the section because the dates don't line up (the first paragraph is until December 2012, second from January 2013). Other articles (Messi, Ronaldo...) also don't use such a practice. The gallery images lacked relevance - first isn't specific for Modrić (also this one, or this with some editing, are better or more interesting, but perhaps could be located in "Honours#Club#Real Madrid") and other articles (Messi, Ronaldo...) generally have only one image at the top, but context being specific individual award as the Ballon d'Or and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I placed the image, but I am really not fond of it or rather indifferent in regard to the layout.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, the image with him and Sevilla is dated February 2013, as far as I know one can place any image within the correct year. Its under the section "2012–13 season". I see that practice done at Lionel Messi#2012: A record-breaking year and Cristiano Ronaldo#2017–present: A record fifth Champions League title and fifth Ballon d'Or. Actually, I don't like the image of him Real during the 2018 championships, I agree it looks a bit tacky. Perhaps the image you presented here will be better suited for the section. I disagree with your assertion that the gallery of images are not "relevant" both showcase Modric with another player. He is in focus, albeit not solely. I would understand where you came from if it was an image of him playing with the entire Croatian team or against more than one player. Its plenty focused on him and complements the section well. One could even add images of him in-game during the 2018 World Cup (when they are posted) to the gallery. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally is not, also the first image placement is due to the quote box. The Sevilla's image is appropriately located (and looks alright in both large and small display resolution). As for the gallery, showcase of Modrić with another player is not the point and context - that's an award and per WP:IMGDD we should not "overload articles with images", the images should be relevant. So, I temporarily changed the image considering that both consider it a bit better suited, but which section revision (image) you prefer?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, okay I like that alternative in the club section a lot better. Instead of the gallery, lets put the image of Modrić playing with Neymar during the 2014 World Cup in the 2014 World Cup section. That way there is a section, space, image...section, space, image... just like there is on the aforementioned articles. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I put the image. I think now it has more than enough images. Anything else?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, the next thing I did was move the style of play box to the right to balance out the Reception image to the left. If images are all put to one side, its usually to the right as there are no section headers there. For example, it would make more sense to have all three images in the international section to the right as there are smaller, more fragmented sections. You've got it right in the reception section, the image is appropriate on the right as there is a large section header there. So why was the box moved back to the left? LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They don't need to be all on the right side because of section headers (see Messi's article), and it depends on display resolution. The box is left because other quote boxes are on the left, the third international image would push it further down and wouldn't be enough space between them, and with few images also on the left, there's layout balance. It doesn't look nice when all the images are on the right because not all sections have enough content to accommodate that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski: I think what needs to happen is that the style of play section will need to be filled out, that will take time. I see that my caption was retained in the reverts, so that is it for my edits. Thank you for working with me.

LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience because your constructive input made the article better.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Several sources were identified as WP:DAILYMAIL and they need to be replaced with reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@NZ Footballs Conscience: the same thing goes for Serbian tabloids Kurir, Informer etc., so please don't revert them as they don't pass WP:RS. The source had a propaganda intention with information which is not mentioned in any of Modrić's biographies and so it cannot be easily verified (doesn't pass WP:VERIFY), nor the information is relevant for the Modrić's early life section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@D 2018 M: the same, the supposed Serbian ethnic background cannot be verified in reliable sources and hence won't be included in the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cropping photos?

I suggest cropping two photos that have empty space, allowing space to increase their sizes. They are in the 2014 World Cup and the Reception sections. For both I suggest leaving the full size vertically, and cropping horizontally to exclude the players in the background and empty space to the sides. After that, I think we can double the scale to show more detail in the photos. What do you think? Frlara (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that they are fine as is. I think its good that it shows Modrić in-play, at least in those sections. Its kind of like the president of a country shaking a constituents hand...etc... I think we're a tad heavy on images anyway. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutral, but the same opinion as LivinRealGüd. It's alright to have images which don't have a centered perspective. If the images are on WC then you're free to do an extraction/cropping and then we will see.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead playing profile

The current lead goes as "...plays mainly as a central midfielder but can also play as an attacking midfielder or as a defensive midfielder, usually deployed as a deep-lying playmaker. Modrić is widely regarded as one of the best midfielders of his generation,[nb 1] and among the greatest Croatian footballers of all-time.[nb 2] Able to blend traditional and trequartista playmaking effectively, he is known for his precision in execution, tactical strategy, and as an accelerated deep-lying pivot". Is the last sentence needed at all (a bit repetitive compared to the first two)? Is it a proper summary of "Player profile", all in comparison to Andrea Pirlo, Xavi and so on?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the last sentence is repetitive, good to remove. I added the sentence because I wanted something that described him as a playmaker and a player. For example I'm seeing on Andrea Pirlo: "due to his vision, ball control, creativity and passing ability" (player) and "Pirlo was usually deployed as a deep-lying playmaker in midfield" (playmaker). One sentence describes his role, the other describes how he executes that role. I like how the article specifies how he is deployed on the midfield, but I also like how on article an e.g. Manuel Neuer, you see specific traits embodied by the player. It appears that Modrić's playing style seems to be somewhat unique and notable. Thats just my motivation for adding the sentence, if theres a better way to express the info, I'm okay with that as well. LivinRealGüd (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Early years

Early Years section deserves its own link. It has much distinct from Club Career. GenacGenac (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Legal Issues

Per edit, I expanded the sentence into sub-section "Legal issues" (as such exist in the article of Lionel Messi). Today was published by Sports Illustrated another source Luka Modric's Croatia Success Story Comes With Complications which basically reports the same thing which adds weight to be covered on the article. Should it be included until conviction? What do you think about the paragraph neutrality? Should it be included that Modrić received public insults (reported by international and Croatian sources) and threats of death (reported by Croatian sources, the exact wording of "threat of death" = "prijetnje smrću" found at [4], and the morbid images are obvious threat of violence and/or threat of death)? If I am not mistaken, such things are not common for footballers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski: interesting, I havn't heard about this case. Anyway I've read all of the citations you provided and first I think having 3-4 citations on a sentence is over-citation. Perhaps it would do good to trim those down to two citations a sentence. I'm drawn to this passage from one of the citations (Sports Illustrated):

In 2008, Modric left Dinamo Zagreb for Tottenham Hotspur for a fee of around $19.5 million. Roughly $12 million went to Modric rather than the club. But 80 percent of that was paid to Zdravko Mamic, then the president of Dinamo who acted as a sort of agent on the deal. This was fairly common practice for Dinamo players at the time, although exactly when the clause was inserted into the contract was for a long time disputed. Mamic, who for a long time was the most powerful man in Croatian football and enjoyed a close relationship with the president of the football federation (HNS), former striker Davor Suker, was brought to trial. Last month, [Mamic] was convicted of fraud and embezzlement and sentenced to six-and-a-half years in jail. By then, he had already fled the country for Bosnia-Herzegovina. If that were all, it would be easy to see Modric as the victim, as to some extent he is, a young player whose desire to play in a major western league was exploited by a rapacious businessman.

I then turn to this passage from another citation (The Guardian):

Modric testified as a witness at the trial of Dinamo officials on charges that they avoided paying 12.2m Kuna (£1.44m) in taxes and that they diverted 116 million Kuna (£13.7m) from the club, anti-corruption police said. The witness falsely said that on 10 July, 2004, the date when he signed his first professional contract, he also signed an annex on the basis of which he had acquired a right to a 50:50 share in transfer fees,” the state attorney said in a statement. The attorney also said Modric falsely claimed he had signed such an annex every time he extended his contract.

It appears that Modric himself has not been signaled as a criminal nor has he engaged in criminal activity. He was a witness in a criminal proceeding. I really like how these types of legal issues have been covered at Lionel Messi#Legal issues. As of right now it looks a tad overweighted. We should certainly have this section but the only thing in it should be 1) exactly what happened in very, very simple language 2) lots of context and 3) how this impacts Modric. The two passages I have selected above seem to do a top notch job of explaining the facts and context so I think they should be a starting point for the section. Just for reference here is whats on Messi's page:

Messi's financial affairs came under investigation in 2013 for suspected tax evasion. Offshore companies in tax havens Uruguay and Belize were allegedly used to evade €4.1 million in taxes related to sponsorship earnings between 2007 and 2009. An unrelated shell company in Panama, set up in 2012, was subsequently identified as belonging to the Messis in the Panama Papers data leak. Messi, who pleaded ignorance of the alleged scheme, voluntarily paid arrears of €5.1 million in August 2013. He stood trial alongside his father on three counts of tax evasion in May 2016. On 6 July 2016, Messi and his father were both found guilty of tax fraud and were handed suspended 21-month prison sentences and respectively ordered to pay €1.7 million and €1.4 million in fines.

We should try to emulate this style as close as possible. Its a really good example of neutral writing and due treatment. Basically I think that the first sentence should be re-written with the above three quotes in mind. The second and third sentences should be deleted. The last two sentences are really good and should be kept as is, perhaps with a slight trim of citations. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a small edit. Modrić's quote kinda gives a neutral perspective. We should be careful with the trim of citations because not all of them have the same related info. Could you make an edit or write here an example of the paragraph?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, something like this:

In March 2018, after Dinamo Zagreb chief Zdravko Mamić was convicted with embezzlement and tax evasion, Modrić was called as a witness in Mamić's trial. During the late 2000s Modrić signed multiple contract extensions to play at Dinamo and transfer to Tottenham Hotspur. Modrić annexed most of his transfer fee to Mamić as he was the broker of the move and gave Modrić financial backing early on in his career. Despite stating in 2016 that he signed the contract ten years prior, at his testimony he stated that he signed them in 2004–the date of his first contract. Modrić was charged (i.e. formally accused) with perjury for stating that he annexed his fee at an earlier date then he had. Facing the judge, he said, "I came here to state my defence and tell the truth, like every time so far. My conscience is clear". The Croatian Football Federation stood behind Modrić, but a part of the Croatian public which was frustrated with the corruption in Croatian football perceived the alleged perjury as a defence of Mamić and became critical of Modrić. This has resulted in public insults and threats of death to Modrić, which has been criticized by the public and current management of Dinamo Zagreb.

From what I've read your last two sentences are perfect summations of the public's perception of the ordeal. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, will make an edit according to that. If am not mistaken, he was a witness during the trial, not after Mamić's conviction.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, it was during his trial. Thanks for correcting. Also, I don't know if you want to do anything with this quote form the SkySports citation: "On the one hand, there are those who claim that Modric could not be expected to know the specifics of the law. On the other, some claim that he is just as responsible as Mamic." Seems to be short and explain the sides well. I'll just leave this here on the talk, if you want to see if you can work it into the existing paragraph go for it. I think your last two sentences do a good job at explaining the sides--just another quote to consider. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Helptottt: why did you consider the part about insults as unnecessary?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As well removed Modrić's quote? How was that another "correction"? Please don't make such edits without checking the discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Helptottt: you are not responding, and yet continue to make disruptive edits removing correct and sourced info. Stop before you get reported for such behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I considered the part about "public insults" and "threats of death" dispensable because in the sentence before it's already mentioned that the public became critical of Modrić. How do I "continue" to make "disruptive" edits when I didn't remove a single source in the "early life" section? I simply corrected a poorly written text. Btw, don't threaten me, just report. You have a history of adding unnecessary info, like in the Subašić article where you considered that he should "declare" himself to be Croatian --Helptottt (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not a substantiation as it had WP:WEIGHT. You did not remove a single source nor I said that, yet you are removing reliably sourced information which is relevant to the understanding of the biography of the subject - that's not a correction. Please stop lying, I never considered that he should "declare" as that was what Subašić said about himself in sourced quote.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

This edit request to Luka Modrić has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Sentence to be added regarding Luka Modric childhood as follows:

"During the year 1990 5-year old Luka Modric was accidentally filmed by a film-maker Pavle Balenovic in a mountain hamlet as a goat-herder around Tulove grede location, in a what was at that time a wolf habitat. The film was about the local wolfs in the Velebit mointain. "

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvbd-ye3U9E Pavlemocilac (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Not needed in the article. Kante4 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That information is not relevant for encyclopedic content and it sounds like a promotion. If it was reported by reliable sources that he helped his father or grandfather in goat-herding perhaps that info could be included in his early life. Also, if there is a photo perhaps it can be uploaded on English Wikipedia, or Wikimedia Commons by the copyright holder (P. Balenovic), and placed in early life section.-Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2