Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Peer review/2007

Crusaders

Hi, I'm submitting this article for peer review now as I think it's nearly ready for FAC nomination. This article is on the rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. I'd really like any comments that could help fix any issues that may arise during an FAC nomination. Please be specific, I'm especially interested in comments regarding criteria 1a, prose especially. - Shudda ^talk 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, hey, in respect to criteria 1a "the pose is compelling, even brilliant" I think this passes it well, the informal tone I noticed during the GA review seems to have been disolved aswell. My one thought is in relation to the section on the team colors and uniform, it seems pretty short, see if you can incorporate it into another section if at all possible †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see the point of the second and third paragraphs in the lead-in. They are too long to be a summary of the club's history. They should be condensed into one short paragraph. The prose in the club history section needs some work.GordyB 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well ,as per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article,". So I've included information on history, records, and notable players, because these things are all covered in detail in the article. Also "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Looking at it though, I think there may be too much detail, but something on history, records, and notable players should definitely be there. Also, could I have some more detail on what prose, specifically, needs work. It's not as helpful just to say it needs it. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing too many sentences begin either 'The Crusaders' or 'The Blues'. Some of the sentences need to be re-written so that they have a different start.GordyB 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Super 14

I havn't worked on this article but I believe that a peer-review is necessary. Please be specific, we should be aiming to get this article to Good Article standard at least. - Shudda ^talk 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My ideas for improvement:

• The lead section needs to be rewritten, especially the second paragraph. Also, needs to add some information on the history of the competition, especially past winners, possibly some of the major records as well.
• Should be a section competition format and sponsorship. That would include information on the naming rights as well the competition section.
• The SANZAR section should be near the top, and should be rewritten. It's in need of some references.
• The history section needs a lot of work. The origins is good, however the Super 12 section is far to small. The expansion section of the history part should be about the Super 14 and the inclusion of the new teams. The information about the Spears could maybe go in the teams section, also, I think it should be summarised, far to much info there.
• The teams section could include discussion on who the teams represent. The New Zealand, Australian and South African teams are all organised and structured differently. New Zealand has a franchise system, each team is owned by the NZRU, Australia it's mainly State teams and South Africa I'm not sure.
• Below the Super 14 could be expanded, especially the impact that the Super 14 has had on those competitions (they've been around since before the Super 12).
• Media coverage section needs to be expanded. Is there a good reason the video game section even exists?
• The firsts in the records section should be removed.
• Remove unnecessary external links.
• More references are needed, especially inline citations.

Any comments? - Shudda ^talk 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All of your points will be great for improving the article. I've got a few ideas:

• In particular, the competition/format section could do with a big expansion.
• Future section is kind of dodgy, I say move to players stuff into history, as it won't be 'future' soon.
• The rest should go into a paragraph to go below the teams table, along with other info (Spears etc.)
• Merge Snzr into comp/format?
• Below the Super 14? Maybe change to "Other competitions" and include a little 3N info?
• No need for Rugby World Cup-like tables for the results section. No flags either imo.
• Obviously the stats/records section would be better as text as opposed to lists.
• Video game section should be merged into "Media coverage" and changed to "Media"...add info about first inclusion in a game, format, platform etc.
• Merge "Other trophies" into "Trophy". Cvene64 13:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick review for the moment:

• largest rugby union championship in the southern hemisphere - I don't think so... Surely other tournaments have more teams playing... Perhaps the largest in terms of revenue or spectators, but certainly not the largest tournament in the traditional sense. this needs to be clarrified.
• Try using the term Round-robin tournament to describe the workings of the first round in the lead, it is currently messy.
• The current competition is the Super 14, this was not inaugurated in 1996, but 2006. Again, this needs to be clarified.
• Naming rights. Yes, they are different in the three participating countries, why? Also, what is it called outside of these three countries as it is televised to over 41 countries.
• references required for the logo section.
• dramatic finish to the 1995 World Cup in South Africa, why was it dramatic? why was it relevant? is dramatic encyclopaedic? Why start that section with that tournament and then go back to 1986? Seems disjointed to me...
• Paid television is significant in the development of the professional league, but we need proper references here. This need for references should also be applied to the entire article.
• Perhaps too much detail and space given to the defunct spears. Five paragraphs seems a bit excessive considering almost no details are given to the tournament between 1996 and 2004.
• We talk about franchises, not clubs or provincial sides, why was this the basis. Did these franchises grow out of provinces? who runs them? who funds them?
• with 12 sides and three countries, why was there not a 4-4-4 split of these franchises? Why did Australia get just three, SA four and NZ five?
• other trophies, what are the significance of these trophies? Where did they come from, why are they important? Are they part of the S14? Do they need to be mentioned?
• Team records could be put in a table
• Below the Super 14 reword this heading

--Bob 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

London Wasps

I've added a peer review request in order to get feedback on what the article needs to push up it's class.... Murkee 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shudda's review

I think you should look at some WP:FA and WP:GA quality rugby union team articles for help on getting this to a higher standard, for example Crusaders (rugby). Anyway, specific advise:

• Expand the lead as per WP:LEAD (you prob want to do this after having done everything else).
• Expand the history section 1968-1994.
• Add references to the history section, it's seriously lacking here. (Added fact check template - Murkee)
• Convert what external links you have in the text to inline citations.
• The stadia section needs a copy-edit. It's currently a bunch of paragraphs that are a sentence or two.
• Please add some sort of key, or footnotes to explain the international column of the current squad section. I understand what U19, 7's and A mean, but others may not.
• Add a notable players section, but make sure it's de-listed. Maybe discuss how this should be composed on the talk page (see Crusaders (rugby) and All Blacks for inspiration).
• Wasps abroad? Whats that about? It should be explained or removed (i don't know what it is about at all). (Edit: Attempt made to address this - Murkee)
• Director of rugby - is that the same as coach? This should have an introductory paragraph, and if it is the same as coach should be expanded and completed.

Thats all I have at the moment, hope it helps! - Shudda ^talk 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GordyB

• I removed the 'See also' section as it is inappropraite to link to a userbox template. < DONE
• I suggest you tidy up the 'Supporters abroad' section as bits of it aren't grammatical. < DONE (I think)
• The history section can be expanded, there is a website that I added to the project mainpage called 'Nobok', IIRC they have a history of Wasps article.GordyB 15:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldman

• Expand the section on stadiums
• Create a section on colours/logos/kits
• Create a section on rivals/traditions/etc (eg. London double headers)
• Fill in all the , as it looks messy. Greatly expand the earlier histories. Goldman07 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

Users at WP:RU would like feedback on the article to get it to FA status. It has had two previous peer reviews and is currently listed as a good article. Cheers. Cvene64 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shudda's review

My thoughts:

• Lead needs to be expanded as per WP:LEAD
• In the 1900 section, does not explain how the France team is selected? Was is a representative team, or a club side that won the right to compete for their country. Also, how did the Frankfurt club and Mosley Wanderers RFC come to represent their respective countries.
• Also, are their match reports for the games?
• Why was it not played in 1904 and 1906?
• What was the RFU's involvement in 1908?
• Is there more information that can be given about the 1908 game?
• Why was the sport not included in 1912?
• Did the american team in 1920 ask to compete? Were they asked themselves?
• Why did Czechoslovakia and Romania withdraw?
• Any other info on the 1920 match.
• Can you say who installed France as 20-1 favourites?
• Can you expand on the game?
• I've read about the 1924 match before, can more be said about the French media's reaction, rather then just one sentence.
• The 1936 thing is interesting. Can more be said about the matches? Is there a wiki-link to exhibition match. If not, please include more details.
• I think the info regarding the 1976 boycott can be expanded.
• There is not much about all the reasons for rugby being turned down for inclusion. It's been requested many times, but turned down every time. Why is this?
• Apart from that, just general things. Seems to be several types of English used. Organization?
• References seems fine.
• For FA, would need more images.

Hope this helps. - Shudda ^talk 10:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keven Mealamu

Some details of his 2005 and 2006 seasons added. Breandán Dalton 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shudda's review

My thoughts:

• Add the {{rugger}} template to the article.
• Include information on his playing for Auckland, and the Blues.

• Why is he not captain for the Blues? Are you sure about explaination, for example Richie McCaw will take over captaincy for Crusaders when he returns. So why him and not Mealamu?

• Include information on his background, so before he started playing first class rugby.

• His schooling, his family, did he have a job before rugby, or has he only ever been a professional player?

• More references need to be added.
• Expand info on his All Blacks career, esp regarding reconditioning squad.
• An image, preferably free, should be included in the article.

- Shudda ^talk 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cvene's review

• There is not much written about his RWC03 selection. Cvene64 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiucsib's review

My thoughts:

• Add caps and points stats to the {{rugger}} template and bring stats up to date
• Add image - As a tip I recently emailed the sharks website and got full GFDL rights on the pen pictures. You could perhaps ask the Blues for the same consideration
• Expand article and divide up into sections for example

• Early life
• Blues career
• AB career

--Tiucsib 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugby union

Think needs another peer review so that the project members can decide what needs to be done to get this article up to Featured Article standard. - Shudda ^talk 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Even just by scanning it I can tell it need a heck of a lot more references.Buc 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need "a heck of a lot more references" just for the sake of it? A great deal of the article discusses the rules of the game. In so doing, it references the official rules of the game. There are no other more appopriate references. Sometimes the citation mania in this place makes my head spin. As if multiple citations is the only proof of quality. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No it needs them as proof of statements made in the article. Wikipedia:No original research will explain it for you. Buc 21:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• The biggest problem is confusion, there has been a peer review or two in the past, and some people have complained that the article does is not coherant enough for the average person. I suggest breaking off Game laws and methods (except Players and officials and Playing field) into Game laws and methods of rugby union, and then writing a shorter more succinct overview of the Game laws and methods that everyone can understand, At present there are a million subsections. See this comment from an FAC.
• The article also needs better use of images and their descriptions.
• Also, merge Attire into Equipment.
• Merge Possible alterations to the laws into Game laws and methods.
• History needs re-writing, which I have outlined on the talk page.
• Major international tournaments should be turned into one section such as "Notable competitions" to include club-regions etc.
• Rugby coaching can be mentioned in Game laws and methods.
• External links is too long.
• Basically I propose to massively shorten the article to make it clearer and neater. Cvene64 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

France national rugby union team

The article is about the national rugby union team. One of the best teams in the world and currently ranked number 2. This article was the WikiProject Rugby union collaboration of the fortnight recently. When the collaboration was over I nominated it for GA and it passed without any problems. I'm looking for any feedback that will help this article get to Featured Article status - as the next step is to nominate it for FAC. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final

I want this article to be at either GA or A standard. I'm not sure on how to approach improving this article. I have a video of the game available if need be. RockerballAustralia 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All Blacks versus France at rugby union

This has recently been promoted to Good Article status and I would like to get it to Featured Article status now. Would like any feedback on how to achieve this. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)matt whitton is the best player in the world (just legendary)
  • The content is already quite good, you should add an image or two to illustrate the article, for example one of All Blacks who toured in Europe at the begining of the 1900's. For L'essai du bout du monde/The try of the century , see here. The largest victory for the All Blacks is indeed in 2007, but somewhere you could explain that a B team played for France as the tour happened as the best teams in France played the finals of the Top 14. Next Saturday there will be something more to say... repetition of the World cup 1999 ? Dingy 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments Dingy. I do hope next weekend is not a repeat of 1999! - Shudde ^talk 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Well here we go...

• Hate the title of the article. Hate it. But, as is usual for me, I can't suggest a better one. Maybe this is how Wikiproject Rugby Union say it should be? "...at rugby union" really grates... This is more likely to be a featured list... I need to think about this.
• Not sure the lead needs to include all the records, you're kind of giving it all away early. It's not a huge article so perhaps just limit to two paragraphs and highlight, well, the highlights...
• "The 1954 match was won 3–0..." - was that when scoring rules were different or is that an example of the rare result settled by either just a pen or a drop kick? Or 3 points for a try?
• What's the difference between a "tour" and a "full tour" in the lead?
• "A first series win in New Zealand was achieved by France in 1994 when they won two Tests, and in 1999 the teams again met in the World Cup." - surely the win in the WC wasn't a "series win"? Slightly confused flow.
• "1905/1906" - prefer "1905–06", same with others.
• "northern hemisphere" - ought to be capitalised I reckon.
• Again, the early scoring system may need to be explained - 10 tries and winning 38-8, how?
• My usual bugbear - "World War Two" - Commonwealth/European article so let's use Second World War?
• "France next faced the All Blacks when they toured New Zealand in 1961. They toured before any of the home nations did.[7] " - flow these short sentences together.
• Check placement of citations, per WP:CITE, immediately to right of punctuation.
• "(where France finished last)" - remove parentheses.
• "Frances'"? Surely, "France's"?
• "All blacks" - copyedit for consistency.
• "bombing" of Rainbow Warrior? It was blown up but I'm not sure bombed is the best description.
• "In 2003 the try was voted the fourth best rugby try (of either code) ever by The Daily Telegraph readers[27]"
  • Missing full stop.
  • "(of either code)" will need explaining for FAC.
• "November 11 1995" - correctly wikilink per WP:DATE, so November 11, 1995.
• "(both to Jonah Lomu)" - remove parentheses.
• Consider colour coding the table so it's clear whether NZ or France won each encounter.
• Also, consider an overall tally of matches won, drawn, lost, for, against etc. at the end.

Those are my starting comments, hopefully they're of use. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact-wise, it looks pretty comprehensive, but a punctuational copyedit is in order. There are quite a number of tiny punctuational things that need a fix (there are too many semi-colons and not enough commas, to start with!) I've gone through the first couple of sections (up to the start of "full tours") working on the punctuation, and also fixed a strange detail where the article said the Fred Allen coached a match. Oh, and to Rambing Man, yes, a try used to be worth three points. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm pretty sure the author's name is Ron Palenski, not Polenski - better double-check. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from GordyB 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this opening line:-

In rugby union, France's national team and New Zealand's national team (known as the All Blacks) have played each other in Test rugby since 1906.

I would suggest

France and New Zealand's national teams have been playing each other in Test rugby since 1906.

I would remove the entire second paragraph which just states the results of each match. THe summary of the results in the third paragraph is sufficient.

Early meetings

British Isles - this phrase is somewhat controversial as a lot of Irish people object to it as implying that they are British. Home nations is less controversial and Britain & Ireland is neutral.

threequarters - feel that this should be hyphenated

Post war

hope that the wind taking it over the posts - grammar "hope that the wind would take it..."

France first toured New Zealand in 1961 — before any of the Home Nations — and the All Blacks won all three Tests. - I think the reference to the Home nations is unnecessary

Full tours

In 2003 the try was voted the fourth best rugby try (of either rugby union or rugby league) ever by The Daily Telegraph readers.

Awkward wording and IMO unnecessarily so. Is there such thing as a non-rugby try?

In 2003 the try was voted the fourth best ever scored in either rugby union or league by The Daily Telegraph readers.