Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 08:03, 9 August 2008 [1].

History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France[edit]

Nominator(s): Shudde
previous FAC (04:25, 3 February 2008)

This article has previously been nominated, and has since been expanded by myself, and copy-edited by ROGER DAVIES talk. I believe this article meets the FA criteria, and would welcome any actionable opposes or constructive comments. - Shudde talk 08:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - a few quickies
    • Check image captions - if they're sentence fragments they should not have a full stop.
    • Avoid bold linking in the lead.
    • Match summary table sorts incorrectly - you need to lock down the final "totals" row.
    • Note iii wikilnks draw, if it's necessary then I presume you should link it within the article as well?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done that, let me know it it's ok. - Shudde talk 08:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all three are acceptable in the context for which they are used:
  • lassen.co.nz/pickandgo.php is used to give more detailed statistics in the summary table below the Matches section. Obviously the best source of statistics for any All Blacks versus France matches is allblacks.com, as that is compiled by the NZRU and they would certainly be the most authoritative source. However "pickandgo" enables a much more flexible way of analysing the data and statistics from Test matches played between the two teams. Certainly the statistics between allblacks.com (see here), and pickandgo (see here) are consistent, so this supports that conclusion. Also pickandgo is now the official statistics partner of www.rugby365.com; which is a professional rugby union news site, which adds significant weight to the argument of pickandgo as a reliable source of Test match statistics.
Wouldn't hurt to back up the lassen site with the allblacks site also. But I think you've shown the site is reliable enough for the use it's being put to here. (If it was being used for a BLP, we'd be more strict) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rugbydata.com is I believe acceptable. It has been questioned at an FAC before (see here). However I believe it is neutral and non-controversial, and in this case, is simply used to justify the statement that French rugby improved between 1906 and 1925 by stating when they achieved notable victories over some international sides. I have no reason to doubt it's reliability.
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I havn't done an extensive search, but it has been used in news articles on the South African Rugby Union website ([2]), and is also linked to by the New Zealand Rugby Union and the Rugby Football Union ([3] [4]). There is no info on the website regarding it's methods, or how they verify their information, but like pickandgo, I have yet to find a discrepancy between rugbydata.com, and more traditional sources (e.g. books, newspaper articles etc). - Shudde talk 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an alternative source just in case, it's a list of results from the "Ligue Nationale de Rugby" which is the governing body for the two professional leagues in French domestic rugby (Top 14 and Pro D2). I think this is a reliable source. - Shudde talk 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.int.iol.co.za is a South African news website. It seems no more or less reliable then any other news website frequently used as a source on wikipedia.
Is it a newspaper/newsmagazine company? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See [5]. It's owned by Independent News & Media. - Shudde talk 02:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK hopefully that addresses those questions. If I havn't explained myself very well, or whatever please let me know. - Shudde talk 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Pretty good article, but still several rough edges. I don't remember doing any reviews of rugby articles before, so keep that in mind.

  • "Since 2000 the two teams have contested the Dave Gallaher Trophy which the All Blacks won in 2000 and have never lost." I would remove "won in 2000 and" from this as it seems redundant. It says they are unbeaten later in the sentence.
  • "was a 61–10 victory to the All Blacks" Picky, but should probably be "by the All Blacks".
  • History, Early meetings (1905–1925): Link try on first appearance. It is essential to link jargon like this.
  • Also consider linking forwards and three-quarters in the quote.
  • Post war (1954–1958): "was dominated by the All Blacks with the majority of possession and territory." Try "was dominated by the All Blacks who had the majority of possession and territory." Also, what is territory? I assume this refers to field position, but would like to know for sure (revealing my lack of rugby knowledge).
  • Do articles exist for the players mentioned here? If so, please link them, as they would be of high value.
  • Home Nations is capitalized in the lead, but not here.
  • Full amateur tours (1970–1994): Parc des Princes, Paris was linked earlier in the article.
  • "France won 13–6" is perhaps the shortest sentence I've seen during a review. Can this be expanded, possibly by including an interesting fact about the game or two?
  • Number eight was also linked before.

I'll take a look at the rest once these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all done except for a couple of things:
  • English isn't my strong point unfortunately, so what was wrong with "was a 61–10 victory to the All Blacks"?
  • Territory and field position basically mean the same thing; it's quite a common term, unsure how best to deal with it if people are unfamiliar with it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
  • I'll find something to add about the 1973 match.
Hopefully everything else has been addressed. It's good to have someone unfamiliar with the sport look over the article. Thanks. - Shudde talk 08:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "to the All Blacks" British English? If so, ignore that comment since I'm versed in American English. I don't think territory needs to be linked; I thought it meant field position and wanted to confirm that. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several players not linked: Keith Davis, Robert Baulon, Paul Labadie, Ralph Caulton, and Ken Gray. None of these people have articles, if you would like me to link them anyway I'm happy to. I'm not sure if that's British English or New Zealand English or not, but to me it reads fine. I could be wrong though, but think it's ok. - Shudde talk 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little on the 1973 match. There is not much information about the game around, but added what I could. Hopefully it's enough. - Shudde talk 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back for some more comments.
  • Still in Full amateur tours (1970–1994): Hyphen for first ever?
  • "as all bar two of them" Is bar acceptable here? In American English this is rarely used, so I'm not sure.
  • "Later, in 1986, the bans served..." Remove first comma.
  • "before the All Blacks counter-attacking to win in the last quarter." Try "before the All Blacks counter-attacked to win in the last quarter."
  • "The All Blacks reciprocal tour of France came in 1990." Should be "The All Blacks'"
  • "In 2003, Daily Telegraph readers the try the fourth best" Notice the missing word.
  • Professional era (from 1995): "Tana Umaga scored three tries in the match and Andrew Mehrtens kicked 19 points in the match." Redundant.
  • "whilst Andrew Mehrtens scored nine penalties." Whilst is usually considered overly formal. While will do just fine.
  • "The two countries met in each year in one-off Tests in 2001, 2002 and 2003." "In each year" is another redundancy. The years are mentioned afterward, so I'd chop that off.
  • "France were 2004 Six Nations Champions, and were defeated by five tries to nil." First, link the 2004 Six Nations tournament so we can find out what that is. More importantly, I would change but to and. It's an odd transfer to go from France winning a prestigious competition to being routed by New Zealand, and an adjustment would help this make more sense.
  • "The final rounds of the 2007–08 Top 14 season conflicting with the tour" Grammar.
  • "made 57 tackles to Frances' 269" Punctuation error.
  • I don't normally get involved with content much, but I feel that too much time is spent on the controversy from the 2007 game. I'm sure other games in the series had disputes like this, but they didn't occur in the Wikipedia era so they have been forgotten. Two post-game reviews from sources who are probably biased in favor of the All Blacks are not needed. Did anyone back the referee? If not, you'd be better off quoting the All Blacks' coach. Also, Wayne Barnes doesn't need his first name used twice.
  • Why are all the sources listed seperately from the citations? Normally only books, and sometimes frequently used web pages, are put in a seperate section. It seems like a lot of wasted space to have a lot of these Internet pages in there, since many are only used once to cite game results.
This should keep you busy for a while. I'm planning on polishing the prose in Records, as I saw a few things that can be improved there. Otherwise this is it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed those things. A couple of comments:
  • "bar" should be fine; certainly is acceptable in New Zealand English
  • I think the 2007 World Cup section isn't too large. The 1999 match (another knock-out WC game) is also quite long, but there was no real controversy in that game, there was universal agreement that France deserved to win, and so it was not necessary to include anything other then a match report. The 2007 match however was very controversial, and I don't believe what is written violates NPOV or undue weight. The statistics from Verusco are also quite incredible, regardless of the outcome of the match, and are worthy of inclusion. I've tried to not include anything that could be seen as subjective, and have let the facts speak for themselves as much as possible. As for your comment regarding the report, and including the coaches comments. The coaches largely resisted criticizing the referee, and in fact are not allowed to publicly do so, they can be fined or disciplined if they do. Regardless of this, their comments would certainly be biased. The review mentioned there was commissioned by the NZRU, but was independent. It was more comprehensive then just looking at the one match, and reviewed the whole world cup campaign, including preparation and so forth. I thought because it was independent, that having it there was important and relevant.
  • The citation method was not what I originally used, but Roger prefers it, and found copy-editing easier doing it that way. It just comes down to personal preference.
Hopefully that clears up those comments. - Shudde talk 06:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree on the 2007 game, but that's just my opinion. You missed a punctuation error above, and I will do my promised cleanup of the prose in Record later tonight. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the punctuation. - Shudde talk 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
Made the edits last night. Oh, and Support. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support—pretty good now. Just a few spaced en dashes as interruptors, versus unspaced em dashes elsewhere; can they be consistent, one or the other? Tony (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Early meetings" section: any way to knit together the three parastubs? It's a bit choppy. Also a shorty in the subsequent section. Please audit throughout for paragraph flow.
  • "The All Blacks had defeated England, Scotland and Wales, and drawn with Ireland"—Easter-egg links: concern that your nice piped links are going to be completely ignored by readers who've hit the one to France (the country, only) previously, and won't realise that these country-name links lead to somewhere of specific relevance to the topic at hand, viz., "The All Blacks had defeated [[England national rugby union team|England]], [[Scotland national rugby union team|Scotland]] and Wales, and drawn with [[Ireland national rugby union team|Ireland]]. This is a broader issue that I want to bring forward for community discussion, but here, specifically, can you think of a signifier that will show them these are links to the teams, not the countries?
  • Date audit revealed quite a few partial links (year unlinked, month and day linked) in the main text; this is a no-no; but in any case, I've removed the autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. Also, MOSLINK says don't bother with links to London and such well-known geographical locations (unless skilfully piped, of course).
  • "Summary of Test matches played between France and the All Blacks:"—We need a formal sentence to introduce the table, since this is part of the running para in the main text.
  • Watch those commas. This is a listy sentence with three items; I'd be inclined to use another comma. "The 2001 Test was won 37–12 by the All Blacks, the 2002 Test was a 20 all draw and in 2003 the All Blacks won 31–23 at Jade Stadium."
  • MOS: en dash needs to be spaced when one item is "New Zealand", which itself is spaced. Can't find it now, but saw it.
  • "The following week the two teams met in Paris; this time to commemorate the centennial of the first ever All Blacks versus France Test." Semicolon should be a comma, yes?
  • "Despite France hosting the tournament the match"—two things: I'm starting to think you need to audit the whole text for commas (viz., their absence). Too many is just as bad as too few, of course, so perhaps someone new could do it, with the benefit of distance from the original writing task. Second, this is an ungainly "noun plus -ing" construction. See this. "Despite France's hosting of the tournament" would get you out of this here, although you might have a better solution.

I've been looking at the end sections; overall, I think it's fairly well written, but a word-nerd who's fresh to this text would be able to polish it nicely in not-too-much time. Tony (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've addressed several things.
  • I tried to appropriately link two of those paragraphs, and added a sentence to the third. There are very few short paragraphs, so I don't think this is a big problem, but if you disagree let me know.
  • Hmmm. I see what you mean about Easter egg links, and I think the best way to deal with it is to be sensible in the context of whatever you are discussing. For example if one was to say, "they played in England" one would expect England to be linked to the country, but when saying "they played against England" one would expect the link to be to the national team's article. If there are any examples of poor linking that you can see please let me know. In the example you gave, linking to the country (or region, ie Ireland) seems like a pretty pointless thing to do; as one is clearly discussing their representative teams. I don't think there need to be any hard and fast guidelines/rules about this, but I completely agree that care should be taken.
  • If there are any examples of over-linking please let me know, I had a read and can't see any that pop out.
  • I'm not sure what you are asking me to do with the summary of Test match statistics. I have added something, but have no idea whether it's what you had in mind.
  • I'm not sure if a comma is necessary there, I think it's personal preference in this case. It doesn't worry me in the slightest, I've left it for now, but if you prefer I can change it.
  • Found that en dash, have spaced it.
  • Changed semi-colon to comma.
  • Yeah Roger is a bit of a word nerd, but unfortunately he's already had a read over it. If there is anyone you could think to suggest I'd gladly ask them for a hand.
Hopefully that's most of it. None of those prob's seemed major. The extra copy-edit will not doubt add that extra polish, and I'll try and find someone appropriate. - Shudde talk 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: everything resolved --JayHenry (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
    • Image:Haka 2006.jpg -- from Flickr, appropriately licensed
    • Image:1905-All-Blacks-.jpg -- claims on this image are a bit confusing. Copyright is claimed by Lordprice Collections and it was uploaded by Lordprice. If this were done properly, they would have filed an OTRS request verifying that they actually have authority to release the image. There's a way around this however because the image is not on Commons: as the image was published in 1905 you can use the template {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
    • Image:France All Blacks 16-11-2002.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed.
  • Other than change of license, no problems. --JayHenry (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added that template. The image is probably also public domain in New Zealand and the United Kingdom (where it was probably taken) anyway, but I havn't double checked that yet. - Shudde talk 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect date linking in sources, including solo years that are linked (1961) and partial full date linking (October 31 1999). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange hybrid citation method. While almost all of the websites are listed fully in Sources, and referred to in Citations, some of them are fully listed in Citations. What is the magic for deciding which are listed where? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the Sources section uses ciation templates, and those use "p." not "pg". Have changed the Citations footnotes accordingly. - Shudde talk 01:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed remaiing things. Wasn't sure why sometimes the year in the "date=" parameter from the {{cite book}} template linked the year, and other times didn't. Couldn't figure out why, so replaced "date=" parameter with "year=" one. Really wierd. Anyway all consistent now. - Shudde talk 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still inconsistent (and even incorrect) date linking in citations. There are fully unformatted dates, fully formatted dates, and partially (incorrect) linked dates, where only month-day are linked, and year is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (Changed to oppose given the length of time since these problems were first raised.) A little dry. I think some mention to be made of the fact that some NZ-France games have been among the most exciting in rugby history, and include two of the biggest World Cup upsets ever: 1999 and 2007. I've added a reference to the 1999 match being the "greatest in World Cup history." The account of the 2007 match smacks of All Black sour grapes, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NB, I see that Phanto282 made similar comments about the dryness of the prose back in January, and this looks as though it was a major reason for the failure of that FAC. And the matter was raised on the talk page back in September and October. Why wasn't the issue addressed? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has to be very careful not to be POV. The greatest upset in history? That is quite POV in itself. The prose has been addressed however, as since then the article has been expanded and copy-edited by Roger Davies (see nom). So the article has been expanded and copy-edited considerably since the first FAC, and certainly since the peer review last year. If you think something needs to be added then let me know, but it's hard to action something as subjective as dryness without being more specific. - Shudde talk 08:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing subjective about dryness. Moreover, it's part of the featured article criteria that an FA's prose should be engaging. Others have pointed especially to the lead, which hardly gives readers an incentive to keep reading, as it's a catalogue of statistics. It could be talking about just about any two teams. I'd have thought that the lead could mention, for instance, the fact that the All Blacks are consistently the best or one of the best teams in international rugby, and that the French are known for flair and unpredictability, and that the combination of the two has given us two of the best matches ever seen in the Rugby World Cup. Meanwhile, there's nothing particularly POV about providing some kind of evaluation like that: there are many sources to be found describing the 1999 and 2007 matches in those terms. Then, when you get to discussing those matches, how about a quotation such as this one, from Anton Oliver: ""The feeling in the sheds was like no man's land. Sort of desolate, decayed, the smell of – I don't want to dramatise it – but death, you know. But that is what it feels like, no man's land, and it is not a nice place to be." That rather highlights what was at stake in the match. But instead, we get the repeated insinuation that it was the ref wot won it for France. All sense of any excitement has been completely bled out of the account. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems with what you are suggesting. The flair and unpredictability of French rugby is quite a stereotype. The way they have played many times in their history has been conservative, and in fact flair has been drilled out of them, here I'm thinking of the 1970s and 1980s under captain then coach Jacques Fouroux, and more recently of Bernard Laporte's reign as coach. The All Blacks have been near the top of world rugby most of their history, but that is neither here nor there. I don't think the article should include sweeping statements that can be misleading; to dramatise or romanticise is really easy in sports articles, and a lot of effort has been made to avoid that here. Engaging is fine, but this is an encyclopaedia number one, so primarily we have to get our facts right. - Shudde talk 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a big problem with the way "the greatest rugby match ever" is worded. This is the opinion of the BBC, and the reference isn't nearly strong enough for the claim that "Many have considered it" the best Rugby World Cup game ever. More importantly, is the game itself overrated? If my scoring is correct, France was up by 19 points near the end; I'm not sure if a great comeback equals a great game, although the Rugby World Cup hasn't been around long. The statement should be changed to "The BBC has called this match...", and I'm not even thrilled with that. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I do agree with Jb about the 2007 game, and still believe that there is too much about the referee. In a perfect world, I'd like to see one analysis dropped and the French point of view told. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "Many have considered it" is bad. This is weasel words and should be avoided, even if Jbmurray thinks it makes the article more engaging. The BBC article was also written in 2003, before the last two World Cups (there had only been four before that) so that is a problem. I'm happy with any suggestion you have regarding rewording this. It is very very hard to find good reliable sources for these kinds of statements, especially when not discussing the match in a truly historical context (four years later probably isn't long enough). I'm not sure if the game is over-rated or not, and if someone was to claim so, they may be right. That's why I've tried to avoid subjective sweeping statements like this. - Shudde talk 11:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has the title of the article been brought up before? All Blacks and France --> New Zealand and France? More consistent and friendlier for those unfamiliar with rugby/the All Blacks. BuddingJournalist 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone in rubgy refers to them as the All Blacks, but I agree that a rename might be beneficial. —Giggy 08:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this has already been addressed on the All Blacks talk page that that is their official name, unlike other national rugby teams in which their well known name (such as the Wallabies and the Springboks) is not actually an official name. Unless of course this article is in reference to more than just the All Blacks playing against France, then it should be renamed. Thanks, MattWT (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to get an image that contains both teams in full for the top right corner? Maybe during the national anthems when they're not moving? I do like seeing images of the Haka but this shouldn't be NZ-biased. (So an image of an early French team, alongside the original All Blacks, would be good too.) —Giggy 08:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I havn't been unexpectedly busy recently. I havn't been able to find a free image with both teams together. Most images that I can find are just massive wide angle shots of an entire field with dots for players! I'm not fussed though, so if people have other preferences that is fine, but we can only work with what we have unfortunately. - Shudde talk 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_All_Blacks_and_France/archive2&oldid=1126594737"