Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 Rugby World Cup/archive1
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative feedback on how it could reach GA-class and hopefully above. Now that the competition is over, it should remain relatively stable, with perhaps the odd bit of vandalism from a disgruntled Englishman or New Zealander. However, I believe that, with a few minor modifications, this article could reach at least A-class.
Thanks,
PeeJay 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else care to make some suggestions? - PeeJay 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- 4u1e's comments
- Lead: 'Of them, Portugal 'is the only World Cup debutant'. Is or was?
- Lead: Doesn't feel like there's much about the tournament itself in the lead. Perhaps remove the bit about pool winners qualifying for the 2011 cup (which doesn't seem important enough for the lead of an article about the 2007 event) and put in more about the way the tournament progressed - the surprise packages and disappointing performances, perhaps?
- Bid: I got confused right at the start! :(
- Were England and France the only two nations to bid for the competition?
- 'The tender document for the 2007 bidding process was due out on October 31, 2001.' Is the tender document the 'Invitation to tender' (the document issued by the IRB requesting tenders), or the tender submitted by England/France? I wasn't sure from the context. Also, saying after the event that the document was due out on a certain date seems strange: did it come out on that date or not? If so, why not just say so. If not, the article probably needs to explain the change and the reasons for it.
- Perhaps move the sentence 'Both England and France were invited to re-submit their plans' to the end of the first paragraph? I think the reader will follows the paragraph more easily if the ideas go in that order.
- Bid: Regarding citing, I know views differ, but as you have used only one reference throughout the second paragraph of this section, I would strongly advise citing it just once at the end of the paragraph. It should be clear to readers that all information in that paragraph comes from that one source and it is far less intrusive. Some will tell you (and they are strictly following the rules) that you should also cite immediately after the two direct quotes, although I don't believe it necessary.
- Bid:I would argue similarly for the first para: refs 1 and 2 are not really needed, since 3 confirms that both France and England bid. 3 (which would then be 1!) could also be used just once at the end of the paragraph.
- Bid (2nd para): 'The tournament was moved to the proposed September-October dates'. I had understood from the preceding para that France's proposal of September/October had caused their bid to fall outside the IRB's parameters. Is this right, and am I further understanding correctly that the proposed change was then made anyway?
- Bid (2nd para): 'French cities to host games are' Were?
- Bid (but also 'Hosting'): Perhaps review how these two sections fit together regarding the inclusion of matches in Wales and Scotland. I assume from the article that matches in these two British nations did not form part of France's original bid? (It might be interesting to answer the question of whether such matches formed part of the England bit, btw). Is it possible to clarify why some matches were planned and/or played overseas? It might seem unusual to those unfamiliar with the sport. More precise timings for the announcements would add to this as well. Did any French cities lose out as a result? Any controversy about this?
- Qualifying: This may just be nationalistic nonsense from me, but it seems that the then-reigning champions should be identified fairly early on in the article. Perhaps 'Reigning champions England and the other seven quarter-finalists from the 2003 World Cup received automatic entry...' at the start of the first para?
- Qualifying: I know you've linked repechage, but I would briefly explain the concept in the article as well, for ease of comprehension.
- Qualifying: Can you find some way of indicating which nations qualified automatically, without taking up too much space? Perhaps a footnote to the table of nations?
- Qualifying: 'In July 2005, both Samoa and Fiji were confirmed' Both is redundant and can be removed.
- Qualifying (2nd para): 'reaching the first place in its qualifying group' Is this redundant? Italy have already been identified as Europe 1.
I'll leave it there for now, but obviously I haven't got very far through the article, which seems to be clearly structured and written so far. Hope this is useful. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've stopped there on the basis that no-one seems to be interested in responding to or implementing these suggestions. You don't have to accept the points, but it's a waste of my time to continue if they are not even considered. Drop me a line if you want me to continue with the review. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)