Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F./archive10

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2017 [1].

Real Madrid C.F.

Nominator(s): DD2009 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a comprehensive synopsis of the history and structure of Real Madrid C.F., one of the most successful and valuable sports clubs in Spain and in the world. --DD2009 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

Drive-by nomination by a brand new editor with no edit history on this or any other article that I can find. See this note. I very much doubt that the main editors intended this nomination without some very careful preparation and prior review. The article had eight failed FACs between September 2007 and March 2009; it was awarded GA on fourth submission in August 2008. Of its numerous peer reviews, the most recent was in August 2011 when the wordcount was 4,636, since when it has now almost doubled, to 8,029. I believe the nomination should be withdrawn as out of process. Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal – I agree with Brian about the nom being out of process, as the nominator has never edited the article. At the last FAC, I noted that a large percentage of the sourcing was to the club's official website. The percentage of references to the team's site has probably gone down as there are seemingly more cites than before, but the site is still heavily used in the history section. Some recentism has crept in since the last FAC; the last four years of Real Madrid's history have a much larger section than the first 40, which may be responsible for most of the increase in word count. Also, there are a couple areas that could use references towards the end. If somebody could fix the recentism and improve the sourcing in the history section, this article would have a chance to pass in the future, as it's far from the worst I've seen here. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the necessary cleanup will be done in time to salvage this FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:47, 23 November 2017 (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Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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. Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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