Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Real Madrid C.F. in Europe/archive1
- 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:13, 17 July 2011 [1].
Real Madrid C.F. in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990 talk 08:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think its well done. I worked a lot since I created it. Thanks in advance. Hadrianos1990 talk 08:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Real Madrid have won the European Cup more times than any other club, and in the early days of the competition were completely dominant. There's more of a story here than simple bare tables of results can convey. In short, more prose is needed. 21 seasons of European football including six cup wins are summed up in two sentences covering 1955 to 1981. Things such as the 7–3 win in 1960 that marked Ferenc Puskas' finest hour deserve attention from the reader, before the article launches into a table of results. This extra prose might come in the form of an expanded lead, or fuller section intros, or as a history section like in List of Birmingham City F.C. managers. Whatever the method, it needs adding in one form or another before this can be considered to be among Wikipedia's best work. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is supposed to be a Featured List Candidate, not a Featured Article Candidate. I used FC Barcelona in Europe article, and that is a Featured List. If you check it out, you'll see that they are almost identical as lenght (even that Barcelona won 4 Champions League titles this is not storied in the article). So, sorry but I don't think you should oppose for that.Hadrianos1990 talk 06:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, featured list candidates have a list as their focus, but this does not mean that only the list part matters. Introducing the context of the list is just as important. As it happens, had I reviewed the Barcelona list I'd have opposed on similar grounds, but that's by the by. Standards rise over time as editors push the boundaries of article quality. The Liverpool article mentioned below, which has developed in the time since the Barcelona nomination, is a perfect example of how the bar can rise. It provides an excellent illustration of how to present events in their context to aid reader understanding of the topic. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oldelpaso is right, there needs to be more prose, I got Liverpool F.C. in Europe to Good Article status. I would like to see this article become more like the Liverpool one, providing the reader with an insight into Real Madrid's participation rather than just a list of results which od not reveal anything. NapHit (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect we should be revisiting the FC Barca FL with a view to getting it expanded per Oldelpaso and Naphit's comments. That could be an FLRC candidate if someone feels strongly that it no longer meets current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Agree with the others above that this could easily be an article, not a list. If the Liverpool page is considered a new standard, then similar pages should be built for GAN/FAC, not FLC. Perhaps we should have been paying more attention to this when other similar lists (like the Real Madrid one) were nominated, but this article is being debated here, not those. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.