Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Blacks

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

---

All Blacks

This is a self nomination. The All Blacks are one of the most successful team in international Rugby union, with a winning record against all major rugby nations. This article has been rated GA and has been submitted for a peer review. It's comprehensive, well sourced and notable. - Shudda ^talk 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It's certainly comprehensive and close to FA standard. One thing I would suggest is ironically not directly related to the article itself - it would be good if more of the coaches had articles. Some of them definitely deserve it - Laurie Mains and Fred Allen should both have articles, to start with. So should several of the names connected with the international hall of fame (no Don Clarke article? Are you sure?). I'd also suggest dropping a note to the WP:NZWNB - there are quite a few of us over there who would love to get another kiwi article up on the front page, and are probably more than willing to add more inffo to the article... Grutness...wha? 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more of them should have articles. I was going to do a Fred Allen one once this review was finished. Don Clarke does have an article, I'll link it now. I'll add a note to WP:NZWNB. Thanks - Shudda ^talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article is heavily sourced from the team's website. How was it decided that these particular players should be included as being important to the history of the franchise except by being featured on the team's website or by original research? Is this a neutral, non-original-research statement: "By this measure the All Blacks are the most successful international rugby union team in history."? One would gather from reading the article that the teams it the best ever, but is this really so? —Centrx→talk • 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

* Yes it is sourced from the website, this is due to the detailed statistics they have avaliable. Many historians contribute to the allblacks.com website and to rugbymuseum.co.nz.

* Can you clarify your statement "How was it decided that these particular players should be included as being important to the history of the franchise except by being featured on the team's website or by original research?" The only players that are mentioned in detail are International Rugby Hall of Fame members and All Blacks record holders. Also (I hate to be picky) the team is not a franchise! It's a representative team.

* "By this measure the All Blacks are the most successful international rugby union team in history." That statement in the lead as it's summarises the record, overall section. The statement is correct and it's not original research. It implies nothing about being the best ever, who is the best ever is highly debatable. - Shudda ^talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the statement is not in the lead. The statement is correct however. - Shudda ^talk 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• To answer Centrx's concerns as to whether they are the best international side ever, the statistics shown say a lot. In full internationals, they have played 417 for 308 wins and only 92 losses. Of their most recent 64 test matches, they have won 55. There is not one national side that had won more that they had lost against the ABs, the closes being South Africa's 29 wins to 38 losses. They have never lost a test by more than 20 points in the 103 years they have beeen playing. They are also the only national team never to have finished worse than semifinalists in a Rugby World Cup. All Blacks make up 12 members of the International Rugby Hall of Fame - no other country has more than nine. As for their recent history, try this and this (I hate having to quote the "enemy" :) Yes, they are the best team ever. Grutness...wha? 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I removed a WikiProject tag out of the article into the talk page, where it belongs. I find the increasingly larger infoboxes throughout Wiki distracting - not sure why it has to be so large. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is random - the first reference I randomly clicked on had the wrong date (Cleary, Mick (6 September 2005). Cut-throat haka does All Blacks no favours. telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on 31 October, 2006.). Maybe just an unlucky typo - please run thru all of them before I do. Also, since you used cite web instead of cite news for that news source, the format isn't correct (article title in quotes) - pls switch news sources to cite news (see WP:CITET). Why is the 2006 All Blacks section commented out - is there something we're not supposed to see ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We have started converting them to the WP:CITET format. - Shudda ^talk 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have gone through and converted all the news articles to the correct format. I have also checked their dates, names and authors. I think it was unlucky that one was wrong as I only found one other that was incorrect. - Shudda ^talk 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment : economic aspects are not covered and should be when rugby became professionnal in 1995, see for example the corresponding article in french (references are in english) fr:Équipe de Nouvelle-Zélande de rugby à XV. I made a suggestion in the talk page too Dingy 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure exactly what you've written (I don't speak French), but judging by the references you're talking about the impact of professionalism on rugby in general. Apart from the fact they get paid, and the introduction of the Tri-Nations aren't most of the other effects at more of a domestic rather then international level? If so wouldn't it more more appropriate to mention the impacts in depth at the NZRFU page or that of Rugby in New Zealand? What exactly should be mentioned regarding professionalism in the All Blacks article? Thanks for your help. - Shudda ^talk 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in New-zealand and I may be wrong, but seen from Europe, a number of players had to make a choice between a career with the All Blacks or pursue a more lucrative career in Europe or Japan or in rugby league, especially just after 1995 when rugby became professional. With more money been put in Super 12/14 and the Tri-Nations (Sanzar) players now have a better possibility to make money while playing in NZ. The drawback is that they must play more high level games and this could have an effect on their performance with the All Blacks after a long season, the world cup is late this year fater Super 14 and the Tri-Nations that has now more games than two years ago. That's the message, it is true that some references are made to Super 14 and to Tri-Nations (extended with more games) but the main players are the same and what is going on there affect them also as All Blacks players. Dingy 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah the impact in NZ has been quite difference to Europe. All Super 14, All Blacks and Air New Zealand Cup players are contracted to the NZRU. As a result the All Blacks have always been given the highest priority, hence there is not the choice for an All Black between club and country that you have in Europe. The impact of professionalism on the Air New Zealand Cup has been big, with the All Blacks playing fewer games, however this is something that should be included in the Air New Zealand Cup article rather then the All Blacks one. The only other impact is that many Ex-All Blacks play overseas rather then in the Super 14 or Air New Zealand Cup, but this is something for those competitions' articles rather then the All Blacks one. Others may disagree of course. - Shudda ^talk 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object: The WP:LEAD seems to be a bit too detailed, especially the first paragraph. There are several run-ons throughout the article, as well as other prose problems (1a):
• All Blacks is the name of New Zealand's national rugby union team. Usually, in the first sentence we don't use 'is the name of'. For example, in George Washington, we wouldn't write 'George Washington is the name of the first president of the US …' Also, in the next sentence, is Test capitalized? I glanced through the article and it is spell without capitalization often.
• There are a couple of sentences which sound like they can be reworded: The first northern hemisphere tour occurred 1905, the All Blacks losing one match on tour, against Wales in Cardiff. South Africa (the Springboks) toured New Zealand in 1921, the series drawn. The All Blacks first series loss occurred against South Africa in 1937, their first series win over South Africa occurring in New Zealand in 1956.
• In 1893 the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRU) stipulated that New Zealand's uniform would be a black jersey with a silver fern and white knickerbockers. By 1905 tour the All Blacks were wearing all black, except for the silver fern. It was during this tour the All Blacks picked up their name. The All Blacks perform a haka (Māori war dance) before every match. The haka traditionally performed is Ka Matè, however since 2005 the haka Kapa o Pango (specially commissioned by the NZRU) has been occasionally performed instead.
• in the late 1860s, Monro discovered the second part is an independent clause. The comma should be a semicolon or a period.
• toured the Australia and New Zealand—although no I don't see any need for the dash.
• that finished all square Perhaps link all square to Tie (draw) for people who are unfamiliar with the term (like me).
• The tour was a success for the Originals, their only loss was 3-0 to Wales at Cardiff run-on
• The first truly representative British Isles (now known as British and Irish Lions) side toured New Zealand in 1930, the Lions won the first test, but the home side regrouped and won the series 3-1. another run-on
• Skipping down randomly: The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak prior to the final the All Blacks forced the game into extra time before losing to hosts South Africa. Ouch.
  • Should have been more clear. Awkward writing (what User:Tony1 would call a winding snake).
• SANZAR formed to the sell TV rights for two new competitions Huh?
• Is there a hyphen in Tri-Nations? The section heading below doesn't contain a hyphen.
  • Just a reminder, "Tri Nations" is used w/o a hyphen a couple of times more.
• in 1996 , the All spacing typo
• they'd Never use contractions (outside of quotes). AZ _t 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed these issues. - Shudda ^talk 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks considerably better, thank you for your work. Support, with reservations about the prose (some more examples to help:)

• The All Blacks' main annual competition is the Tri Nations Series played against Australia and South Africa where their record of seven series wins (the most recent in 2006) and 30 match wins is well ahead of the other two teams. Two mistakes: the "main annual competition" is not the Tri Nations Series (btw, hyphen?), and "their record of …" is not ahead of the "other two teams" (but the records of the teams).
• The food poisoning sentence, comment above.
• All Blacks first ever Test match apostrophe?
• He moved onto coaching after his playing career, eventually coaching the All Blacks between 1966 and 1968. Half of the sentence is redundant.
• 1960's No apostrophe (MOS:DATE)! AZ _t 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I will address these issues. I requested a copy-edit from WikiProject League of Copyeditors a couple of days ago. If you have any other comments regarding prose please mention them, as I'd hate this to be a failed FAC due to prose alone. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed these issues. - Shudda ^talk 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Better than any other national sports team article on WP, and certainly on a par with existing sports team FAs. One minor point, I'm not sure its necessary to state "They also compete in the Rugby World Cup every four years" in the lead when the Rugby World Cup is already mentioned a sentence or two earlier. Oldelpaso 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I have removed the World Cup statement. - Shudda ^talk 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Per Oldelpaso and Shudda.nz addressing the issues. This article is of high standard, has good images and is a fine example of very good wikipedia article on a sporting teams. This may be a little bias though, as I am sitting here in my All Blacks shirt!!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Prose:

• The All Blacks are New Zealand's national rugby union team. New Zealand first competed internationally in 1893, against New South Wales.

Odd transition—a definition juxtaposed with history in media res. The sentences which follow have little action; they just read like statistics—"The All Blacks first series win over South Africa occurred in New Zealand in 1956". They also need rearrangement into a better sequence.

• The All Blacks first Grand Slam (wins over England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales on the same tour) was achieved in 1978.

Weak use of passive voice.

The introduction summarises the history more than the article.

• The match has become folklore in both countries due to debate whether All Black Bob Deans scored a try which would have earned the All Blacks a 3-3 draw.

"over" would serve the sentence better than "due to", which makes it come off as rather stale.

• The 1924 All Black tourists to the United Kingdom (UK) were dubbed the Invincibles due to the fact that they won every game.

Similar problem. "due to the fact that" withers the power of "because".

• The opportunity to attempt a grand slam was prevented when Scotland refused to play them in an argument over expenses.

"was prevented when Scotland refused to play them in an argument over expenses" expresses the historical event weakly. Try to write it more like story than a lifeless newspaper article.

That's all I have time for now! I have an appoinment to attend. Good luck! Rintrah 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address these issues although I also think the introduction still needs some work done on it. GringoInChile 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GringoInChile, the lead looks much better. I have also checked over the section headings as per WP:MSH. The headings look fine at the moment, my only question is whether World Cups, and World Cup should have their first letters capitalised, I think they would? Is this correct? - Shudda ^talk 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it should be capitalized because it's a proper noun; we're refering to the name of a specific item . When it wouldn't be capitalized is when we refer to world cups in general, e.g. Many different sports hold world cup tournaments. GringoInChile 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Has met FA standard in my opinion. Great work. Cvene64 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Although the content is good, I have reservations regarding the grammar/writing style as it seems disjointed. I feel that further copyediting is required by someone with fresh eyes. This is becaue Shudda is too close to the article to carry this out, although he has done excellent work here. --Bob 06:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Been doing some copy-editing (sorry for letting it slip off my radar the first time around...it's too easy to get sidetracked in this place). Some confusing sentences to me:
  • ...losing only four games (however, two of these were Tests) I didn't understand why "however" was used here. It may be because I'm not familiar with rugby.
  • ...team has been described as the best team to ever leave New Zealand. Is "leave" being used colloquially here? Is it equivalent to "play" or something?
  • ...before winning one of the matches of the tournament against Wales This is ambiguous. Is "matches of the tournament" supposed to be taken literally or being used as a substitute for "important tournament match"?
  • The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak prior to the final the All Blacks forced the game into extra time before losing to hosts South Africa. Sentence needs cleanup. Isn't this also kind of repetitive to what was covered earlier?
• The two sentences on the Kapa O Pango controversy doesn't really explain the controversy...
• On the whole, the prose is OK, but a bit dry, especially in the beginning. I was a bit bored reading the same sentence structures over and over again (In YEAR, the All Blacks did this). Not sure what can be done about that though.
• There's a heavy reliance on passive voice throughout the article. Remember that the passive voice is avoided by good writers. :)
• Some paragraphs skip randomly from thought to thought. It's a bit jarring. For example, "A young Jonah Lomu made a huge impact in the World Cup, especially in the 45-29 win over England where he scored four tries. The New Zealand team suffered an outbreak of food poisoning before the final." Gzkn 08:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and please make sure I didn't introduce more errors in my copy-edit! :) Gzkn 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your work:

• "losing only four games (however, two of these were Tests)" Yeah this does make sense. The All Blacks used to (they don't really anymore) play matches against clubs, provincial teams, or invitational sides, as well as National teams. However a Test match is only between National Teams (with a couple of exceptions such as British and Irish Lions). - I'll wiki-link the first mention of Test in the article.
• "...described as the best team to ever leave New Zealand" - Leave is used literally in that sentence, so when they left New Zealand to return to South Africa. The description implies they are better then any All Black side to Tour overseas.
• "matches of the tournament against Wales " It's meant to mean top matches. I'll rewrite it.
• "The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak..." - Yes, this is repetitive, I'll fix it.

I'll fix the "Kapa O Pango" controversy section. The lead's prose does need work, I'll ask someone to have a look at it for me. Thanks for your help and I've checked your copy-edit. There are a couple of minor mistakes, but I really appreciate the help. - Shudda ^talk 09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - there have been a few comments on the prose and rightly so; in a lot of places it is quite stodgy. I have just copyedited the "Introduction of rugby to New Zealand" and "International competition begins" subsections of the History section which I hope people will find to be an improvement. I intend to due a thorough copy edit in this manner and will probably get through the entire article by the end of this weekend. GringoInChile 11:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've done the samee with the lead-in section. Not perfect, but better than it was. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - leaning to support. I like it very much (even if I am less keen on their win percentage over Italy - just member who won the football!). However, this ought to be on the front page soon, but first I think the lead needs to be re-written putting things into more of a chronological order - perhaps even being shortened a little. Then I'll support fast. Giano 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is the lead not chronological? - Shudda ^talk 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.