Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F./archive3

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

The article was not promoted 17:03, 19 September 2007.

Real Madrid C.F.

previous FAC withdrawn

previous FAC

I think Real Madrid is the best team in the world and Real Madrid C.F. article is the best article of wikipedia. I want you to tell me why IFK Goteborg is a featured article and mine not. My article is better than that stupid article. I think you hate Real Madrid because is the best team and your english football teams are stupid. I also saw that except IKF Goteborg article only articles about english football teams are featured. It's not fair!!! --

• Placeholder comment I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to antagonise people with that loathsome nomination statement, but I'll assume good faith that you've done something daft, rather than being a troll. I'll overcome my distate for what you have written there and assess the article on its merits. --Dweller 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - This article is close to FA but needs some work. I'm sorry about that, because clearly a great deal of work has gone into it and it's a good article. However, it needs a thorough copyedit for English and for consistency (one small example - club referred to as "is" and "are" in the Lead), there are significant unreferenced claims (one small example - "Best Club of the 20th Century" claim in Lead - also not referred to again in article), records of first two managers are blank/unexplained, role of President is not explained, history imbalanced - 9 parags, 3 covering c.100 years, 6 covering c.20. There are surprisingly few POV issues, but some do remain; even if undeniably "true", comments like "The Bernabéu is one of the world's most famous football venues." or the stadium capacity being "overwhelming" should really be referenced. Sorry, but this needs more work. And these objections arise from just a quick flick through the article, rather than the in-depth detail picking that FAC supports will require. I suggest you start by recruiting a copyeditor. --Dweller 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - sorry but this is becoming a little boring. Please consider taking the article for a good
  peacock terms, all of which would be sorted if a peer review was conducted. The Rambling Man on tour 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose featured articles must meet a number of necessary requirements, they are not chosen because of the subject's relative importance. I suggest you to consider peer reviewing it before submitting this article once again. It needs copyedits, sources (rivalry with Juventus is news to me) and more balancing between recent and early times. --Angelo 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Four FACs, a GAC, a peer review, and a GA/R in one week? Jeez Louise. Slow down, and take each step in its own time. Besides posting the article at GA/R and FAC simultaneously (as it is right now) accomplishes nothing and really just makes reviewers hostile towards the article before they even read it. Drewcifer 09:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.