Talk:FK Željezničar Sarajevo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeFK Željezničar Sarajevo was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
May 17, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Improving the article[edit]

I would love to improve this article, but it would be a lot easier with a "to do" list so that this article improves it's quality to at least B-rated or even GA. So any recomendention what to do is welcome. AnelZukic (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After having all recomendations found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs, you can allways focus on the best rated club articles existing on Wikipeida, which are the ones found on this list. I´ll post here if I remember on anything specific. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will start as soon as I found enough references for all the informations. AnelZukic (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FK Željezničar Sarajevo. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FK Željezničar Sarajevo. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FK Željezničar Sarajevo → FK Željezničar

— The club's official and most common name (see official website, Bosnian FA, UEFA, Fox Sports, etc.). In addition, it is the most notable club of such name (FK Željezničar already redirects to this page). Also, Željezničar Sarajevo may refer to derby game between Željezničar and Sarajevo. ..::11soccero11::.. (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:FK Željezničar Sarajevo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll pick this up. Kosack (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "from its being established by a group of railway workers", sentence is a little off grammatically.
  • "playing in a 1980–81 Yugoslav Cup final" > playing in the 1980-81...
  • "In Europe, the club is most famous", be careful of using potential WP:PEACOCK terms like famous.
  • "The club is the first Bosnian team to reach the UEFA Cup semi-finals", the club was the first... Use last tense as this is not a record that can be beaten.
  • "The club has qualified for UEFA Champions League (post European Cup) as its best finish was the 2002–03 Champions League third qualifying round", this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
  • "produced many Yugoslav and Bosnian greats", another potential peacock term.

Pre-independence (1921–1992)[edit]

  • "But Željezničar was a club for the common people, people interested in football and fun", this sentence sounds almost like it comes from a promotion for the club.
  • "and even beat stronger and wealthier clubs", what makes a club stronger?
  • "and every football activity was stopped" > all football activity.
  • Some of the wording here sounds quite unencyclopaedic I wod say, particularly things like "the club that has remained a major irritant to Željezničar's fans" and "devastating influence on the club".

1971–72 Yugoslav champions[edit]

  • It's rather odd to have the league table for this campaign in the main text.

UEFA Cup 1984–85 semi-finalists[edit]

  • "Željezničar's biggest international result", I don't think biggest is the correct wording here.
  • The first sentence is also quite long and could do with splitting.

Kit manufacturers[edit]

  • Only a portion of the entries on the list are sourced.

Records[edit]

  • Why are only the record sales listed and not signings?

Players[edit]

  • Why is the multiple nationalities list necessary?

Unfortunately, I'm going to fail this article on an initial run through. The overriding issue is the lack of sourcing which is very sparse throughout, including an outstanding citation tag and several seemingly unsourced paragraphs throughout. I would also recommend a copyedit to iron out some issues with some slightly broken English and wording issues. The list above also contains a few points worth looking at before seeking another nomination. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Kosack (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:FK Željezničar Sarajevo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 01:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah I will be reviewing this article. HawkAussie (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Lead[edit]

  • The club has also finished as runners-up once in the league, - Drop the word, has in that sentence
  • ...having won 6 Bosnian championships, 6 Bosnian Cups and 3 Bosnian Supercups. - Manual of style states that any number below ten have to be written out.
  • The club's so far best post-war European result... - Drop "so far" in that sentence
  • ...result was qualifying to the 2002–03 Champions League third qualifying round, - Change this part of the sentence to state only the third qualifying round from 2002-03 or something else to make sense
  • ...to Newcastle United 0–5 on aggregate. - Change it around to be 5-0 on aggregate, not 0-5
  • ...in which both teams have similar win-loss records and games ending in ties. - This oart of the sentence can easily be dropped.
  • The club has produced many famous Yugoslav and Bosnian players... - This bit is fine but the list of players is way too many for that section.

Pre-independence (1921–1992)[edit]

  • First paragraph, no references at all
  • ... a friendly, was played at Kovačići, - Kovačići is meant to be linked.
  • ...17 September 1921 against SAŠK Napredak which resulted in 1–5 defeat. - 5–1 defeat not 1–5 as you have posted.
  • The next day another game was played, a 1–2 loss vs Sarajevski ŠK. - This needs rewording here, something like "The following day, Zeljeznicar played another game against Sarajevski SK resulting a 2-1 defeat."
  • No mention of anything between 1921 and 1941 like did they compete in a league or anything like that.
  • Many footballers were members of the resistance troops, and some of them were killed. - This sentence isn't really needed here.
  • Again that third paragraph needs references here.

Planinić Affair[edit]

  • Why is this section of the article it's own thing, it could easilly be merged into the first section.

UEFA Cup 1971–72 quarter-finalists[edit]

  • Once again, this bit seems out of place especially when you put it towards the previous two sections.
  • Also no references for this section either, ahhh

1971–72 Yugoslav champions[edit]

  • It was mentioned in the first GA review, but why is their a league table in the history section where it could be placed anywhere else.
  • Željezničar's greatest domestic success at the time... - Why is domestic linked here as that is the wrong place to have a link. Also no references again.

1980–81 Marshal Tito Cup finalists[edit]

  • ...season, Željezničar reached the Yugoslav cup final - Capital C for Cup.
  • ...but lost 2–3 to another Bosnian side Velež Mostar with both Mehmed Baždarević... - Again, the winning score first. Also drop the word "another" here as that word isn't needed.

Comments[edit]

Look I am not even going to finish this as it's doesn't seem to be close to being an Good Article especially when their is sections of the article not even referenced which fails WP:OR. If I was you, I would put it through WP:COPYEDIT or WP:PEERREVIEW at the minimum to help out with this article. HawkAussie (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FK_Željezničar_Sarajevo&oldid=1202036730"