Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches

1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive2

Nominator(s): Shudde ^talk 09:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This least list has previously been a Featured List (see discussion here), but lost it after review (see here). The list details the playing matches of the 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team that played mainly rugby union. The tour was the longest in rugby history, and must be one of the longest in sporting history. Playing up to three games a week of a physically brutal sport. I think the list has been improved significantly, and meets the criteria. Shudde ^talk 09:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and their first matche a 5–0 victory over Hawke's Bay." "matche" → "match"?
• Victorian Rules in Australia: The For and Against columns need sort templates as the numbers aren't sorting properly.
• Note 16 should have the page range be given as pp. instead of p.
• Hyphen in the second general reference should be an en dash instead per the Manual of Style. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done; thanks for the comments - Shudde ^talk 11:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose quick flick over the lead... Per WP:YEAR shouldn't this be 1888–89? Image caption doesn't need a full stop. It's rugby union, say it, don't just say "rugby". I've done that; some editors argue that it shoudn't be called rugby union until after 1895 when rugby league was formed—I'm not really one of them. So happy to change. "privately organised" what does that really mean? Not organised by any governing body - one of the provincial/national Unions. I've added a footnote. "to comprise of " many people would say "comprise of" is incorrect... changed to "contained" "non-New Zealand born" probably need another hyphen here. "The team played internationals against England, Ireland, and Wales—resulting in a victory against Ireland, and narrow loss to Wales.[4]" no, the preceding sentence didn't "result" in a victory etc. Needs rephrase. Tried something. See what you think. "The initial leg of their journey" -> need to reiterate who "their" is because the previous para has finished up talking about several different teams. " and their first match a 5–0 victory over Hawke's Bay." first match ended or resulted in or something? You link Auckland but not Melbourne, any reason? "a heavy defeat to Auckland"—this refers to the rugby team, and is linked to the team's article. "After stopping in Melbourne on" - this refers to the city, so I didn't link it, but am happy to do so if you wish. "matches on the British Isles leg of their trip, and averaged nearly three games a week during the opening three months of that leg" weak sentence, matches, games, three, leg etc etc... " Despite the injury toll, their last 20 matches in the British Isles were played over only 37 days, but during these matches they did achieve 14 wins and a draw" again, too much run-on and weak prose, suggest you ask for a copyedit. " the team travelled to Melbourne, Australia.[14] In Melbourne " poor prose. If these are sorted out, I'll take a more detailed look at the lead, then the main list. In all honesty, this list is borderline quick fail I'm afraid, I'd send to to peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Yes I was not really sure about the naming of the article, it had been moved by someone else during a period in which I was editing little. I'll move it. I think I've addressed all your other comments, and think it reads better now. Hopefully it's salvageable regarding prose, especially as it is only a few hundred words. - Shudde talk 05:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments getting there... Consistency now needed with the year range (WP:YEAR). Image captions say "The New Zealand Natives' football team" but article is "New Zealand Native football team"... Ref 1 & ref 3 are footnotes, not refs. In fact, ref 1 is a link to a Wikipedia article, that shouldn't be used to reference anything here I'm afraid. I'm a bit confused by these two comments. I have listed all citations and footnotes under a notes section, and all references under the references section. The relevant references are then linked to using a Harvard style citation template. Hopefully this is not confusing, but I think it works pretty well – especially as all the citations except one are to books. Ok, no worries, I get it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC) "to contain of only" no need for "of". "Of their 107 rugby matches" no need to repeat rugby. "The team played 74 matches in the British Isles, and 36 games " perhaps replace ", and" with a semi-colon, or rephrase to make it clear that the 36 games is included within the 74 matches. "There was only one match in Scotland," - > "Only one match was played in Scotland"... "drop goal" or "drop-goal"? "complete.[19][16]" numerical order for refs please. "At least one club, Manningham F.C., has since converted to association football." ref? This is based on the information on the en-wiki article! Actually changed names to Bradford City A.F.C., and that page does provide a citation to back this up. I could steal their one if need be? - Shudde talk 07:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, the citations for this list shouldn't rely on other articles. Can you provide a citation here please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Refs 20 and 21 are footnotes, not refs. See comment above. "Association Football matches" -> Association football matches. You may wish to consider colour coding/symbolising wins/draws/losses? I generally find these look quite ugly, but if you can suggest an example somewhere that looks good, I'd be happy to do this. Consider a totals row for each table. You link Surrey in the table but not in the lead... Ref 22 is a footnote, not a ref. See comment above. Notes on scoring for Victorian Rules probably needs to go at the top of the results section since you summarise the overall results before telling the reader what the scores mean. 70 (11/14) - shouldn't that be 80? Ref 23 is a footnote, not a ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Unless I've stated otherwise I should have addressed those comments. Only thing is the totals for the scoring. I'l probably go through and do this (the main reason I never did is because my sources didn't). I'll try and get it done relatively promptly. - Shudde talk 07:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC) No worries, couple of resps above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC) However, refs 20, 21 and 23 are still just notes, I know there's a confusion over footnotes, notes, refs etc, but it looks like 20, 21 and 23 aren't actually cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I think we're on the same page. I've added references for the notes that need it. I didn't reference the Ireland thing, or the Northern Union later becoming Rugby League, as I don't believe either can be reasonably challenged. I've updated the totals column in the tables. Should have addressed everything now. - Shudde talk 12:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Shudde, this nomination looks like it's stalled, have you sent a message out to the regulars at the rugby and Aussie rules projects? Even some football editors (e.g. PeeJay2k3) may be interested in reviewing this? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I posted messages letting both the rugby union and New Zealand projects know about the nomination back in April. I haven't asked for comments from any editors directly, especially as I didn't want to be seen as canvassing. If you're happy for me to contact a couple of NZ or RU editors that have experience commenting on Good or Featured content then I will, but I'm not comfortable doing that unless you're happy with it. - Shudde ^talk 08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've gone posted something at the WP:RU talk page, just saying that the nom. has stalled and extra eyes would be appreciated. Hopefully this gets a response. - Shudde ^talk 12:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've slightly changed the alt statements on the image to reflect what can be seen, rather than the subject matter. But the article looks good to me. The rugby union teams named appear to be correct and the British Isles dates and results reflect what I know of this tour. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Not really important to FL status, but I noticed <includeonly>__NOTOC__</includeonly> in the source code. Is this serving a purpose? Adabow (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• File:1888-1889 Natives Tour.jpg should have a US copyright status tag
• "For the rugby matches in the British Isles, New Zealand, and Victoria tries scored one point..." - a bit WP:SEAOFBLUE and hard to distinguish that 'Victoria' and 'tries' are separate links
• For the sake of clarity, I would suggest separating explanatory notes (eg "Includes Ireland") and citations into separate sections, or at least into separate lists.
• Can the source for the British Isles table be shortened and linked to the main reference (ie shortened to Ryan 1993, p. 143.)?

Adabow (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Should have dealt with those comments. US copyright tag done, split notes and references. Let me know if it all looks good. - Shudde ^talk 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent. Meets criteria. Adabow (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm happy now my various niff-naff questions have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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