Talk:1992 South Africa vs New Zealand rugby union match/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My edits. Please review and modify as necessary.

Comments

• Per WP:BEGIN, I think the first sentence needs revising as it's a bit contrived to get the title into the text
• "The Return Test" towards the end of the lead should be "the Return Test" per WP:CAPITALISATION
• I think the photo should be removed from the infobox as it is of a different match, a different sport and a different decade.
• "Between 1984 and 1992, South Africa had been isolated from playing test rugby" – "South Africa were isolated"
• "Rugby at the time was seen by black South Africans as a symbol of white supremacy and the ANC demanded that the new SARFU improve development of black players as the Springboks team consisted solely of white players at the time, though black players were eligible for selection for the Springboks following the merger of the two governing bodies." This needs to be two sentences, probably broken after "development of black players".
• I'm not sure http://springbokrugby.webs.com is a reliable source.
• Are there no news reports of the match? It could be expanded rather than just giving the bare facts.
• No reference for the final paragraph of "the match"

On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have sorted the issues that you mention here. With regard to Springbokwebs, it does state that the written information is garnered from several sources but I am predominantly using it as a link source for the videos of the match. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The C of E, I remain uncertain about the links to Springbokrugby.webs.com. I can't see that it's a reliable source. Now that you mention it, I realise that it is also linking to copyvio videos, which is prohibited by WP:ELNEVER. You have also not addressed my question about news reports of the match... Relentlessly (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to find some sometime this week, I'm a little busy in real life but will try to find something. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: I have tried my best but I could not find any match reports from the time, however I do have some news stories from the time regarding the aftermath. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, The C of E, I'll pass this. It's not perfect, but GA standards don't require perfection. The sourcing for the match itself is not readily available and in all reality the significance of the match is clearly not the actual play. The sourcing for the rest of the article is significantly improved. Good work! Relentlessly (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)