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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 [1].

Bicycle kick[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about association football's most iconic skill. With the 2018 FIFA World Cup in progress, I hope that this article can successfully pass the FA review in time for the final match. The article has already gone through multiple reviews, and the current version meets all standards of FA-quality. Sources are up-to-date and properly cited, images are properly licensed (and presented), and the prose reflects nearly three years of review and improvement. The past nomination failed because of few votes. All that the nomination currently requires is support. Thank you for your time and consideration.-- MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Minor point, but it wouldn't hurt to link FIFA in the lead.~~
Execution: The line underneath the section name is being cut off by the Sergio Ramos photo in the previous section, which is discouraged by the Manual of Style. Fortunately, there's a simple fix that will not require you to interfere with the photo size or writing in the previous section. Just put Template:Clear between the end of the Name section and the start of Execution, and that will automatically fix the problem (with the added benefit that it shouldn't leave much whitespace in this case).
Execution: In the third paragraph of the section, you don't need to repeat "Sports historian Richard", since that is all in the first paragraph and the subject's last name should be enough to identify him, since there aren't any other Witzigs being written about.
~~Iconic status: Minor, but the Premier League link could be moved up a sentence to its first appearance in the text.~~
~~We have an article on the 1982 West Germany–France match, which may be worth linking to.~~
As an American, I was taken aback by the statement that Balboa's kick "is even credited with boosting the sport's popularity in the United States." I checked both of the given sources and found nothing that would support such a broad statement. One of the sources said the kick had an exhibit in a hall of fame, but that's not the same thing as popularity in my mind. This book has an interesting bit about how the kick indirectly led to the purchase of an eventual Major League Soccer team, and says it could have been a frequently replayed moment had he scored, but I would need to see something specifically saying it increased soccer's popularity here before taking it at face value.
~~The source for the proposed Manuel Negrete statue is from five years ago. Have they built it yet?~~
The page range in ref 16 should be the smaller en dash, not the bigger one in there now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Awesome suggestions! Thank you, Giants. All should now be addressed. Negrete's statue has not been built yet, but a few months ago his goal was voted the World Cup's best by a FIFA fan poll (I added that information). Page 4 in the Simpson and Hesse book mention that Balboa's kick helped launch Major League Soccer, so that has been cited and the sentence fixed to reflect it.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Koncorde

I am not sure this would pass a GA standard if I was to review it, so I am surprised that it did so in 2015. It doesn't appear to have resolved issues raised at prior FA nominations, notably it is poorly organised, rambling, lacking in concrete definitions. The origins talk about it being during the formative development of association football in south America during the 18th century...so the 1700's. The later sections barely mention the dates and times but suggest association football came from South American influence on the game brought by British expats. This doesn't really make a great deal of sense, given football in its various forms has been played on Britain for at least 500 years, and in wider Europe in various forms too, while various indigenous tribes the world over play any number of sports requiring the overhead kick as a general feature of play (Sepak takraw for instance) in addition to native tests of agility and physical prowess (Alaskan High kick being just one example). I think the origin would be better served by being specific in its claims as currently it's a very disjointed sequence of claims, counter claims, and even a source saying "we'll never know because it isn't written down". The article needs to go back to basics. Simplify, standardise, and concentrate on its motion and notable instances. Less subjective waffle. The POV talk page editors pushing for more and more definitive claims of specific inventions have not helped as it has just introduced more and more wishy washy sentiments. Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde: Insults aside, I am interested in understanding your concerns. To answer a few direct points:

Nowhere in the article does the "18th century" appear. No reference is ever made to the 1700s. I assume we know that modern football took shape starting in the mid-1800s?
Dates and times appear in the "History" and "Iconic status" section, as well as in the introduction.
At no point is it ever said that association football "came from South American influence". Otherwise, please direct me to where exactly I can find is this claim?
The history is supported by relevant secondary sources written by historians and journalists. It seems you have your own idea as to how the bicycle kick was invented, but we both know that Wikipedia is written based on references and not personal opinions.

I look forward to your response and please kindly ask the provision of constructive criticism rather than destructive criticism (e.g., "I am not sure this would pass a GA standard if I was to review it"). Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the criticism is entirely valid and nothing to do with "destructive" but an actual honest appraisal of the standard that this article currently holds (which is barely coherent). You might not like that, but it's the truth. I am introducing other examples to point out that the limited number of sources being used are likely not covering the breadth of knowledge on the subject or are too dependent on specific opinions for interpretation.

However, first of all - apologies, my editing via my mobile phone seems to have introduced a couple of anomalies in my statements (switching between browser windows). For instance for 18th read 19th, and the rogue mention of "association football" should have clearly been referencing the bicycle kick not the sport.

This still doesn't change the fact that this article is using synthesis of multiple sources to try and present a coherent history. Instead it presents various opinions about individual claims.

Starting from the beginning with the lease:

The opening sentence makes little sense. A "physical move" is what exactly? The Rabona article is a much clearer format and standard.
The description of the move is appalling. If there is a source somewhere that describes the action of a bicycle kick in such a way I would be very surprised, so I am assuming it has been bastardised by additional qualifying statements over time. It needs to be made concise, and then somewhere else it can go I to the physical mechanics.
The use of the skill, and its suitability, and dangerous state is okay. I haven't read the citations for each individual claim made but I am going to assume that they uphold it. I wouldn't include it all in the same format, but that's a personal taste.
The next paragraph explicitly claims a South American origin. However it then branches into lore, multinational objections and the last paragraph in the lede then says there is a controversy about the claims. I have no idea why FIFA's praise of the move ends up at the end of this paragraph when it should be either at the top during the intro, or within the section relating to cultural impact.
The final paragraph doesn't really know what it is doing. It's at least two completely unrelated subjects.

Onto the main article,

The Name section is actually okay. It repeats itself a few times retreading back and forth the the different ways it is referred to by different nations. A table would actually help present some of this in some fashion.
The Execution section needs tidying up, it introduces cultural aspects or opinions of its flashiness, where it should focus on the actual strategic and functional execution. There are shades of duplication and repetition, mostly where Witzig is referenced at the beginning and end.
The History section likely should be adjacent to the Name section in some fashion. They appear to be largely associated with each other.
The history section in and of itself Runs into issues as soon as it starts making statements in Wikipedia's voice. "Nevertheless, the available facts and dates tell a straightforward narrative, indicating that the bicycle kick's invention occurred in South America, during an era of innovation in association football tactics and skills." Hmmmmmm. There are a number of cites and references, however it is unclear what elements of those statements are attributable to a person's opinion, and it is unclear to what "era" is being referred. I am assuming it is meant to fold into the following paragraph but it fails to transition.
The following paragraph seems dependent upon a single source (Wilson), but reports it entirely as fact. Goldblatt is introduced as some corroboration, but this is entirely synthesis in its current form. It also needs to be properly attributed as their opinion.
Their authoritative stance would be useful.
We then run into mutually exclusive claims about 19th century Vs early 20th century origins. These are based, from what I can see, upon two independent sources with their own interests in the origin within their own nation. We should be clear that these are opinions. It should be clear that we either have evidence for the origin at an earlier date, or the first evidence is for the later date - but it is surmised that it originated earlier. I see "1892" being bandied around in a few sources.

In conclusion this seems relatively simple that there is no definitive answer as to its origin, and even the South American claim is clearly rooted in some degree of dispute. The final section on its iconic position appears to be a mix of just a list of instances and a bit of commentary often lacking context (the Peter Crouch comment only makes sense if people first know Crouch, an ungainly tall player, achieved such a 'skilful' goal). It also neglects to mention Barry Venison clearing the ball off the line back in 1994 for Newcastle. A travesty of an omission.

Ahead of time, apologies for any incoherence as editing via a mobile phone is technically difficult, and maintaining a quality of English, grammar and formatting is fraught with the usual problems of autocorrect that you don't always spot. Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde: Thank you for the details. I appreciate high standards, but please do remember that I am a volunteer editor. Treating my work with disdain is not encouraging. If corrections need to be made, I will make them to the best of my ability. I need substance in order to address them. Telling me that the article is "barely coherent" is hurtful, not helpful. Telling me to look at the Rabona article to improve the first sentence is helpful, not hurtful. That is the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. I hope that this clarifies matters. As for the article, I have edited the introduction ([2]) and will proceed with the body, again based on those suggestions that are constructive. I look forward to more improvement suggestions.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteer editors. Criticism of an article is not criticism of a person. It is clear this article has been constructed, and rebuilt in small portions on a few occasions but hasn't had a wholesale review to recompose it's meandering threads (certain parts show better editing which suggests a single user has been more responsible for that contribution alone, or more confidence with presenting the sources). I am not sure whether multiple editors over multiple years have had a go at incrementally amending and improving the article, but it seems likely that is the case (with perhaps yourself as a single editor trying to tidy up those elements). A WP:BOLD approach was probably required a few years back at the GA review but it didn't attract enough attention from experienced editors, and this repeated at FA twice. If you posted this to the Football project then I am not sure how I missed it at the time.

When back at a PC I will happily provide more structure on the talk page. Koncorde (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: It appears from the feedback thus far that this article requires substantial work to get up to FA standard. Therefore, the nomination will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.