Talk:Rugby union/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 01:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I will be working on this review. It will take some time given the broad scope of the article.

Well written

The lead has some text that does not appear to match the body of the article. One example: The article starts off as saying that the sport is also sometimes called rugby. This is not addressed near the top of the article, and variations do not mention this issue as clearly as it is implied in the lead. I'd suggest at some point discussing this, possibly in the variations section with a reference to rugby league, how they both share the word rugby in the title but that sport is more often called league instead. If not there, make it more clear in history section, in a footnote that says that rugny union and rugby are used interchangable in the article or some place else. Find a source that says the sport is often called rugby. --LauraHale (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficulty. As rugby union is not 'sometimes' called rugby, it is more likely called rugby 95% of the time. Thus Rugby World Cup, watched by an audience of 4.2 billion without confusion. It is so common in fact that to find a cite that states that rugby union is just called rugby is difficult. The sport of rugby league is a different beast from union, it split from rugby union in 1895 and this is the reason why the term rugby union is used, only as a differentiating title. If the split never occured then the title rugby union would probably not exist today and this discussion wuld not be happening. I'll dig deeper. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Addressed. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. :) The name issue isn't that big of one, but for some related articles, they have whole sections on naming. Good integration on that and i fit was there before and I didn't see it, my bad. I mostly did a skim and went ZOMG! LACK OF SOURCES! :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

List incorporation could be fixed, especially as it pertains to variants. --LauraHale (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In the external links section, the links to other WMF projects may need tweaking. The search result on wikiquotes is very messy. Perhaps get that to link directly to a rugby union quote page instead? --LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Touch line is a disambig. Needs to be not that. --LauraHale (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Help, I can't find it. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambig checker. Might have been fixed by an IP address already. --LauraHale (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done It was line out and not Touch line. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well written revisit

Name issue has two sources. List incorporation appears cleared up in areas I had concern, like the variants section. Not sure how to clean up that sister project one, so will just ignore it. My bad on getting the disambiguation wrong, but yay! Fixed. Pass on this section assuming not major rewrites are needed as a result of citation issues. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Teams and team structures has sections that are unsourced. They include:

• Front row

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Second row

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Back row (some sourced. Not all)

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Laws has unsourced sections:

• The playing field

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Scrum

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Officials and offences

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs in Equipment are unsourced. :  Done Cited. Governing bodies is almost entirely unsourced. :  Done Cited. Global reach has paragraphs with out sourced. All global reach paragraphs have multiple sources  Done Cited. Women's rugby union also has sourcing problems.  Done Cited. Major international competitions has a major problem with lack of sources.  Done Cited. Rugby Tours has zero sources.  Done Cited. Women's international rugby is missing sources.  Done Cited. Variants is missing sources. :  Done Cited.

The lack of missing sources is a huge issue. An article nominated for good should be completely sourced at the time of nomination. I would put first efforts into immediately fixing this. I will make additional comments, but if it does not look like work is being put into improving sources over the next week to ten days, I'll quick fail it. Once sources have been added, a more thorough review of the text can be done. ---LauraHale (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead links:

• The Amateur Era (info) [rfu.com]. accessdate=6 February 2010.

 Done Dead link deleted. Second source already in place to back up the information. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Pumas will stay crouched until 2010 (info) [rugbyrugby.com] accessdate=11 October 2007 date=13 August 2007 publisher=RugbyRugby.com

 Done Found the same article, but now hosted by another site. Repaired. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• laws (info) [irb.com] 404 Dead since 2010-10-04

 Done Hyperlinked text to external cite. Removed. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Intro EN (info) [irblaws.com] accessdate=6 February 2010 404 Dead since 2011-05-03; WebCite archive avalible

 Done Dead link deleted. Second source already in place to back up the information. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Protect Your Assets: Mouthguards (info) [coachingtoolbox.co.nz] accessdate=30 May 2010 404 Dead since 2011-05-03

 Done New location of page found and relinked. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sir Tasker Watkins statue unveiled (info) [wru.co.uk] accessdate=28 August 2011 date=15 November 2009 work=Welsh Rugby Union 404 Not Found

 Done Found a similar news story that completed the cite on the BBC. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

These links need to be removed and replaced with non-dead links. (This should have been taken care of before nomination.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable revisited

Footnotes and references combined:

"Of the touring 1905 New Zealand team, J.B.G. Thomas in his 1954 book On Tour wrote "When they arrived in this country [Britain] they were regarded as an unknown quantity, but it was not anticipated that they would give the stronger British teams a great deal of opposition. The result of the very first match against Devon was regarded as a foregone conclusion by most British followers."" That is currently citation number 19. Can this be put in as separate footnote or formatted using a note (see Help:Footnotes for how to do notes or Wikipedia:FNNR#Notes_and_References) or abuse of the quote field in Template:Cite book? Citation 48 which reads "Although the dimensions of the field have been converted to the metric system, some commentators still use the old imperial measures when referring to specific laws." has similar issues, except this one is technically uncited. Assuming it is the previous source… you might want to try something like:

{{#tag:ref |FOOTNOTE TEXT.<ref name="REF"/>|group="note"}}

The above is how you create footnotes with citations. Reference 180 that says ""Statsguru / Test matches / Team records: Lithuania, matches between 4 June 2006 and 8 May 2010, sorted by ascending match date". ESPN Scrum. SFMS Limited. Retrieved 6 May 2011. The dates were deliberately chosen to bookend Lithuania's 18-match winning streak." has that issue of looking like it could be a footnote or a reference. Needs to be cleaned up. This: "In the first century of rugby union's history the IRB only recognised matches with international status if both teams in a match came from a small pool of countries: Australia, British Lions, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales. Griffiths, John The Pheonix Book of International Rugby (1987) p. ix" is reference 141. It has the same issues as referenced above with [14].

Printed references

This is a major PITA clean up in the extreme. There are lot of book references used. Example: Godwin (1981) p.160. There is nothing wrong with these. They just need have one of two things done to them: They need to be manually converted over to full {{cite book}} references, with the page numbers differing. The other option is to the citation style outlined at Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Harvard_reference_and_shortened_footnote_examples, where you can leave just the author and the page number, but toss that in a {{harvnb|LASTNAME OF AUTHOR|YEAR|PAGE}} so it links to the appropriate section in the print references section. (I've added the code there to make them link there, if the Harvb references is added.) In any case, one option or the other needs to be done for all print references that currently list author, year, page number with out the full citation and not linking (clickable linking to something in the printed reference section. --LauraHale (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And huh, I did that and now the they are linked but many of those do not appear be properly linked. They include:

[39] ^ Bompa and Claro (2008), p. 62. [40] ^ Brown, Guthrie and Growden (2010). ^ Stubbs, Ray,(2009) p. 115

List of ones that need linking or full cites includes:

^ Marshall (1951), p. 13 ^ Marshall (1951), pp. 13–14 ^ Godwin (1981) p.9 ^ a b c d e Godwin (1981), p. 10 ^ Godwin (1981), p. 12 ^ a b Godwin (1981), p. 18 ^ Godwin (1981), p. 19 ^ Godwin (1981), p. 22 ^ Stubbs (2009), p. 118 ^ Midgley (1979), p. 394 ^ a b c Godwin (1981) p.11 ^ Godwin (1981) p.74 ^ Godwin (1981) p.174 ^ Godwin (1981) p.160 ^ Godwin (1981) p.43 ^ Dine (2001) Chapter 4, French Rugby in the Wilderness pp.79–94 ^ Godwin (1981) p.148 ^ Godwin (1981) p.130 ^ Godwin (1981) p.48 ^ Godwin (1981) p.166 ^ Godwin (1981) p.92 ^ Godwin (1981) p.152 ^ Godwin (1981) pp. 112–113 ^ Godwin (1981) p.105 ^ Bath (1997), p. 77 ^ a b c d "Rugby football" in Encyclopedia Canadiana, p. 110

That should be pretty complete. If you can't find the full source to build complete citations, and I'm assuming good faith these are accurate, then alternative sources could be used. Probably easiest to try to convert them over. --LauraHale (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done All written sources (which are all listed in the bibliography), have been given full cites. One I was unhappy with was able to be replaced with a web source, and another was incorrectly sourced and I replaced it again with an online source. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The done comment was just for the unlinked book pages? (Still some problems with footnote texts, and some of the linked pages not properly linking to the bottom OR those linked ones being reformatted.) Anyway, once the citations are cleared up, I'll do a check of sources, just to makes sure that most of the web ones match the text, and should be good to pass. --LauraHale (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got a handle on the harv links, hopefully that is all the book cites done and linked. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tried out the links and they all appear to work. w00t w00t! :) I went through to make sure everything was cited, and there are a couple of places lacking them. :( I've tagged them in the article. This information needs to be either cited or removed. Once those tags are cleared up and I do a random quick verification of sources to make sure the text is supported by the facts in the source, we should be good to pass. Not perfect and I'd definitely do a Peer Review before going further, but a major improvement over what it was, and appears to meet all the GA criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And on a related note, if the Harvb option is the one that goes, then existing book sources like "Else, David (2007). British language & culture (2nd ed.). Lonely Planet. p. 97. ISBN 186450286X." would need to be formatted similar. All print book sources should be treated the same for the sake of consistency. (And this will probably be one of those BFDs if there is ever an attempt to take this to WP:FAC. --LauraHale (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As the citations are all fixed, I'm doing a random check to make sure the citations support the text. If all goes well, should pass it in the next hour or so. If not, then I'll comment to say what needs work. If it is a minor tweak, I'll fix and then pass. --LauraHale (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Broad in Coverage

The article addresses the main aspects of the topic. Topic headings are good. Breakdown of content is logical. No obvious sections are missing.--LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And whoops. Yeah. Missed it. The major thing missing: Demographic information and total number of players. This is standard information for the sport information box and should be included somewhere in the article. Perhaps stick this main aspect in its own category heading or in the around the world and/or variants section. --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done The rough number of over five million players is referenced in the cites in the statistics sub section. The more precise number of players, plus the number of clubs I'm having difficulty citing as it comes from here, whereby I totaled every single union who presented date to the IRB. The difficulty is that this needed 117 cites to compile the data. Can it be taken in good faith to link to this article as referenced proof? FruitMonkey (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The problem is that this is sometimes done using lists, which does not fit with summary style. In other cases, things do not match or need to be longer.

• Statistics and records is too short, has content that does not match with the broad topic heading.

 Done Extended with its global television reach, number of world players, highest scores, etc. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rugby within international tournaments I would have several see mains listed in the top section, or make each section longer as currently, it is really, really choppy to read and looks like a bunch of one liners that do not do a good job quickly summarising daughter articles.

 Done Unchopped and brought together. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Variants is a list. I'd add a bit more information, making each bullet point into a paragraph. It does not seem completely unreasonable to assume people would land on this page looking for information on rugby sevens and touch rugby. More information would help the coverage be broader.

 Done Some more textual (is that a word?) input into this section. No longer a list. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Major fixes would be combining subject headings to be less choppy and do a better job of summary style. --LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Broad in coverage revisit

I think things look pretty good here. There are minor things I might like to see if this was to go forward, like making the global section a bit more contemporary, as opposed to being historical… but I'm more of a sport historian type person than a sport performance, so that could be my own bias. Statistics section isn't fantastic but I think it is good enough for a good article on a topic that is this broad. (If taken to FAC, it would probably require a massive rewrite.) The variants section is much more improved, broader and has more necessary detail. Otherwise, subject headings appear to be in line with other sports and appear to adequately cover the topic. --LauraHale (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

There are no obvious bias problems that I can see with the article at this time. No particular region gets excessive coverage in terms of favouring one nation over another for examples, statistics and major events. --LauraHale (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Stable

The article appears to be stable. There are no major conflicts on the talk page. Vandalism in the page's history appears to be normal, given the broad scope of the article and does not appear to be related to inherent issues of insability in the article. --LauraHale (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Images should be right align, left align, right align… with altering alignment. Lack of doing this is causing some image stacking so images aren't illustrating the right section. Images are not required to, but should have alt tags for those using screen readers. --LauraHale (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have added an alt title to most images, the rugby pitch and positions are very difficult to do justice too, and have tried my best to alternate the images left to right. Not sure if the alt descriptions actually do the pictures justice though? FruitMonkey (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. So this issue is fine. I also really appreciate putting in the alt tags, even though technically not required. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture placement is much better. :) And thanks for adding the alt text. It isn't technically required for a GA but it is good to have. The picture stacking problem is much less worse now than it was. --LauraHale (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images revisited

This issue is good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)