Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Blacks versus France at rugby union/archive1)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 3 February 2008.

All Blacks versus France at rugby union

edit
Check external links

I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It is well referenced, well written, comprehensive and illustrated where appropriate. Has been through a pretty helpful peer-review and this should have fixed any major problems. Both All Blacks and France national rugby union team are FA's so hopefully can get this up there as well. Thanks. Shudde talk 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't read past the lead yet, but being ignorant of rugby, I found the lead very confusing. For example, I do not know what a "Test" is. I would also suggest some discussion about the title of the article, as it is confusing. I can't think of anything better at the moment that isn't absurdly long, though. Maybe something like "History of All Blacks versus France rugby union matches". --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Comments addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment.
    • Per the peer review, I also dislike the name, it's very clumsy. If there are other articles like this in the rugby league or union wikiprojects, perhaps a centralised discussion on how best to name such would be useful (assuming this title is the result of such a discussion!).
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man

**Don't forget that FAC needs to be accessible to all so as per Laser brain's comments, ensure that, at the very least, jargon terms are wikilinked to something relevant. If this is not possible then an explanation within the text (or a footnote) may be necessary.

    • "... before any of the Home Nations ..." why is this relevant?
    • "achieved" used three times in the lead, becomes a bit tiresome.
    • Twickenham is wikilinked in the lead, as is Millennium Stadium but not Westpac Stadium.
    • "Northern Hemisphere" is capitalised and could be wikilinked.
    • "...played throughout the British Isles..." - who did they play? Clubs, countries or both?
    • "...and eventually won ..." makes it sound like they struggled but 38-8 is a thrashing, particularly with the early days scoring system (which may be worth a mention, i.e. how many points for a try here to provide context, especially when the score may be compared with modern day scores...)
    • "...The Complete Rugby Footballer..." what is this? A book, some other publication? It needs to be clarified.
    • "...All Blacks' Invincibles' tour of 1924/1925...." - two things...
      • Explain Invincibles. An article exists for this I believe?
      • Should be 1924–25.
    • "Although French rugby had advanced since 1906..." - sounds like original research to me unless you can cite it?
    • "... the All Blacks still won 30–6; with France scoring two tries." - why the semi-colon?
    • " 40 metres..." consider using the {{convert}} so Imperialists can read this distant in ft.
    • "drop-goal " - needs linking or explaining as it's proper rugby jargon.
    • Same for "converted tries ".
    • "First five-eighth" - this is very NZ centric - consider adding "(fly half)" - after all, that's what it links to.
    • "tries to Ralph Caulton and Ken Gray" - "tries from Ralph..."?
    • Wikilink Wales on first occurrence to their national team article.
    • "France won the first Test in Toulouse and the All Blacks the second in France." - spot the problem?
    • "France then reciprocated and toured in 1979." - toured New Zealand.
    • "his scrotum rucked" needs explanation for the non-rugby mad reader.
    • "November 11 1995" needs correct wikilinking, i.e. November 11, 1995
    • " in a one off Test" would read better as "in one off Tests"
    • Link Armistice Day.
    • Use en-dash in 2007-08 Top 14 season (I know the article doesn't but that's because the article title is wrong...!)
    • Link "caps".
    • Consider using "the French" instead of "France" all the while, like you switch between "New Zealand" and "All Blacks".
    • "sin binning " - explain or link if possible.
    • 1500->1,500.
    • Would be a good idea to qualify "The All Blacks and France have played a total of 46 Tests" with "As of January 2008, ...".
    • "List of all Test matches played between France and the All Blacks:[50]" - yuck. Plus the next table isn't the list, it's a summary...
    • Consider putting totals at the bottom of the summary table, making the row bold, making the columns same sizes, making the table sortable.
    • Use consistent formatting in the date= parameter of {{Cite web}}.
  • Hope the comments help improve the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Don't have time to deal with everything right now, but most are minor things so should be easy to fix. But replied for now:
  • It's relevant they toured New Zealand before any of the Home Nations—being the first of these major rugby nations (from Europe) to tour New Zealand says something, and no doubt (this is OR, but prob correct) influenced the decision of the Home Nations teams to start touring there.
  • The title is not incorrect—there is nothing technically wrong with it (if so please let me know!). You said in the peer review that you didn't like it, but just like then you have no better suggestion! How is the title confusing? All Blacks, France and Rugby union? If these aren't known to people they are discussed and linked in the first sentence. History of All Blacks versus France rugby union matches hardly seems any better, and could be more restrictive (for example, any incidence outside the matches would not some under this title).
  • I'm not changing the positional terms from the NZ ones, there is no reason why I should do this! Sorry, but first five-eighth and second five-eighth are linked, so people can find out if they don't know, but i'm not changing from writing in New Zealand English as this is a NZ related article.
    • I'm not saying change them but this article should be accessible to both Kiwi readers and the rest of the world. You know the Northern Hemisphere don't use that terminology. It would be easy to at least have their Northern Hemisphere counterparts in parentheses afterwards, wouldn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The convention in rugby union articles is that the local term is used, and that it is wiki-linked in it's first instance. Most New Zealanders do not ever use (or even know) the term fly-half, yet it's present throughout wikipedia. Many rugby union positions have a large variety of different names, and where you are from depends what you will use (for example fly-half, first five-eighth, stand-off and outside-half all refer to the same position). If it wasn't linked you would have a point, but it is. - Shudde talk 09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What makes this article more local to NZ than France? Why shouldn't the title be France versus All Blacks...? The French wouldn't use first five-eighth. You've got to remember this article isn't a Kiwi article, it's about rugby union in general and the majority of the RU universe (including France) would use fly-half etc. Just add it in parentheses afterwards, it's no big deal is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hehe. Well the article is in English. Their term is "demi d'ouverture" in French—which doesn't seem to literally translate to fly half. I'm concerned at the precedent this would set (thats why I'm making a big deal out of it), obviously the article is going to be read by more then just New Zealanders, but New Zealand English should be still used. This is certainly not an article that is about rugby union in general however, it is about two specific teams, from specific regions. For example in Rugby union fly-half is used, but in Rugby union in New Zealand then first five-eighth is used. I'm just very worried about the precedent this sets—seems unnecessary to me. - Shudde talk 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah. I agree a precedent may need to be discussed here. Let's not talk about language, perhaps hemisphere is better. The Northern Hemisphere teams would definitely not use five-eighth, the Southern Hemisphere teams might. The article is about a Northern Hemisphere team and a Southern Hemisphere team hence no bias should be given either way (in my opinion)... This needs to be discussed at the project I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah like I said the convention is to use the local term, but with France, it's clearly not an issue. - Shudde talk 10:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well I'm afraid this will be a sticking point for any support I may give. It's important to resolve this, like the naming convention, as it's bound to crop up again. FA's need to be accessible to all, not just Kiwis I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It is accessible to all! Anyone can click the link if they aren't familiar with the term. - Shudde talk 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Is it a big issue to add fly half here? I don't see why the Southern Hemisphere gets precedent in an article about N and S Hemisphere teams. If it was All Blacks vs Australia then it wouldn't be quite so bad. But in this case it's still a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Could I point out that according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation" - this supports my stance. - Shudde talk 11:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Okay. But that's a little pointy really. The manual of style doesn't take into consideration articles which discuss two very different countries. This article is not a NZ-English article, it's a universal English article. What happens when you write All Blacks versus England at rugby union? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It's not pointy. The reason we have the convention (within the project) is to avoid arguments like this. In this case, we are using New Zealand English (the article is written in New Zealand English, it's commented at the top) because France is not an English speaking country—this is consistent with the MoS. If it were New Zealand versus England then it may depend on who started the article (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety), but I think the talk page of that article (which doesn't exist) would be the best place to discuss that. In a case like that, I myself would not care, as long as it's consistent. However this is not a situation where you have two national varieties of English, and I'd prefer we discuss this case, rather then other possibilities that aren't relevant. The manual of style backs me up on this, and (less importantly) so does a convention that has arisen in RU articles. - Shudde talk 11:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←I guess I'd better start that article quick then so we don't go through this again - I can't believe it depends on who gets there first! I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point then. I'm adamant that it's not only jargon, it's language-specific jargon. I know it's wikilinked (which could save the day) but that's not really the point. Anyway, let's move on from this, I won't oppose on this point alone, I think it's an issue that needs to be resolved on a project-wide basis. I'll start striking out what I consider to have been dealt with shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I think that rule just exists to have some way of resolving such arguments. It's probably a case of "if all else fails... whoever go there first!". I personally don't think that's relevant in this case, but like you said we'll have to agree to disagree. - Shudde talk 12:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armistice Day is linked in the first instance already.
Anyway will get back to the rest later. Cheers. - Shudde talk 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished up what Stormie did not do. Please strike what has been addressed. There are only a couple of other little things:
  • I have not added any more info on the value of different scoring methods—they have changed several times since 1906, and where possible I have added the number of tries scored in a number of areas throughout the article to try and give the reader a good idea of the dominance of a particular team (38 points in 1906 was much harder to score then 38 points in 2006). Anyway this was mentioned in the peer review and I believe I've addressed it.
  • Please let me know if their is any jargon unlinked or explained (Tests, caps and ruck have been done since the nomination).
  • French rugby had advanced since 1906, this is almost certainly a case of WP:WHEN. Between 1906 and 1925 they were admitted to the Five Nations, and by 1924 had achieved a win over Ireland, and draws with Scotland and England. The game had also expanded significantly since 1906. (see History of the French national rugby union team). Anyway, don't think it's OR—just seems obvious really.
    • No, I disagree. If you're saying the French had improved then you need to be specific and justify it. The examples you've given are obvious to you but not to someone who doesn't know about the early 20th century history of French rugby union. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could easily add three or four links supporting what I just said, but it it really necessary? Nothing is going to be obvious to someone that knows nothing about the subject. I can add those links, but seems like a bit of a waste of time. - Shudde talk 09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not clear, at the moment, how the French have advanced. If anything, the score of the match after this so-called advance shows nothing other than the fact that they haven't advanced! It needs justification or removal in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well there are reasons why, every team is different, and that All Blacks team was very good. Certainly in France the sport had advanced (I am 100% sure of that!). There were far more clubs and players, but it may have advanced in New Zealand as well (although this could be wrong, as rugby league popped up). I'll add a note or something to the sentence; hopefully this will do. - Shudde talk 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully everything has been addressed. Please let me know if not. - Shudde talk 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could write a short article about Test status? I still don't get it and it seems like a major part of understanding the lead. There is no explanation in the lead and the wikilink goes to a disambiguation page. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get around to it at some point. Basically it's an international recognised as full strength by either country. - Shudde talk 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created something, doesn't go to disambig any more. - Shudde talk 07:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some of the minor changes. --Stormie (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the green check mark images.--Laser brain (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The lead is not engaging. As a non-fan of rugby, I need more than a brief resume of scores of various matches as to why I should continue on and read the rest of the article.

There is no context. Is Fr v NZ some of the best rugby in the world? As a reader, inform me. Where are comments by the French re NZ rugby & vice versa? How are the two teams different, physically, tactically and administratively? How is the rugby culture different in France to NZ? Are there players who save their best for these matches? Which are the classic encounters?

The writing is pedestrian; too many sentences start with “Due to”. Mix it up a bit. There are way too many short sentences: eg:

France toured New Zealand in 1989 and played a two Test series. They lost both Tests; the first 25–17 at Lancaster Park, and the second 34–20 at Eden Park. The All Blacks reciprocated by touring France in 1990. Again there were two Tests and again they were won by the All Blacks; 24–3 at Nantes, and 30–12 at the Parc de Princes. The next tour was when France came to New Zealand in 1994. They won the first Test 22–8 at Lancaster Park. The second and final Test on tour was at Eden Park on 3 July 1994.

Look at how many sentences there are in this one short paragraph and review the overuse of semi-colons. Too many sentences start with the word “despite”. Where is the administrative background to the matches? Eg. Why did Fr tour NZ before the other home nations? What happened when Fr was banned in the 1930s.? I don’t understand the section on the 1986 match & the absence of players who toured SA: what is the context? The para on the ’07 WC reads like excuses for NZ’s loss and isn’t balanced. Why does the article adopt the familarity of the “All Blacks” and “Blacks”, yet it doesn’t use “tricolours” or “les blues” for Fr?

Phanto282 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on the para quote from earlier, this is extracted from the article, further on:

25 1989-06-17 Lancaster Park Christchurch 25 17

26 1989-07-01 Eden Park Auckland 34 20

27 1990-11-03 Stade de la Beaujoire Nantes 24 3

28 1990-11-10 Parc des Princes Paris 30 12

29 1994-06-26 Lancaster Park Christchurch 8 22


Explain what's the difference between this info contained in the stats section and the para of prose quoted in italics, above.

Phanto282 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I need to clarify a few things, and hopefully address some of the things you have bought up.
  • What should be added to the lead; specifically. It's supposed to be a summary of the article, but I'm willing to add something if you can be specific.
  • Context? Where should this go? Their respective places in world rugby is something that is discussed in their articles, and is outside the scope of this article.
  • I think we have to be careful here. This is not an article comparing and contrasting rugby in New Zealand and rugby in France. This is an article on the history between the two teams. Certainly the administrative differences between the two teams is outside the scope of the article (unless it has had a direct and clear impact on a particular result, and it hasn't).
  • There are comments/quotes within the article; "We are strongly of the opinion that the game will spread in their country and that in the course of time they will put a team in the field which will command the utmost respect of any other." from Billy Stead and Dave Gallaher, "Your forwards gave us a lot of bother. Your three-quarters were not so good" from Cliff Porter, and "We wanted to play them in the final because we wanted revenge" from Wayne Shelford. I actually try to not have to many quotes due to fair use concerns. A few is ok, but I do agree that a quote from a French player would be good. It's prob harder to find (because they don't speak English) but will see what I can do.
  • Rugby culture? Like I said above, this is about the teams. The team culture would be something to discuss (otherwise would be outside scope of article), but there is a problem here. Each team is different, and the generalisations that people make are often wrong. The culture of an All Blacks team playing in the amateur era of 1905 during a tour of many months and the culture of the professional All Blacks of today who may only be in a country a matter of days is one example. An attempt to do this would be full of holes, and most likely WP:POV or more likely WP:OR.
  • If you find me a test player that says they save their best for certain matches then let me know, but it's unlikely. I know what you are implying, but it's not something that really occurs.
  • Classic encounters. To have a list of classics would be POV. I would prefer to deal in facts (which is quite different to a lot of the things you are suggesting, and may be the reason for all your comments, ie the generalisations and opinons), I have intentionally not said this is a great match and that is a great match because that would be POV. You could prob find an equal number of people that say X was a classic as would say Y was a classic or Z was a classic. People can make up their own minds.
  • Administrative background to the matches! They aren't rigged. What exactly are you asking for here?
  • I don't know why they toured before the Home Nations. See above (in Rambling Mans comments) for that. The most likely reason is that the Home Nations did not want to tour due to them participating in British and Irish Lions tours, but this is not 100% clear, and is something I can't verify.
  • When France was banned they didn't play the All Blacks (what else would banned mean?). The ABs only toured Europe once that decade so the impact on their relationship was relatively small.
  • The Cavaliers article is now linked. "due to the rebel Cavaliers tour to South Africa, most of the top All Blacks were banned for two matches" should now be more clear. The Cavaliers were an unsanctioned team, so the players were punished. The context is that the team was then missing experienced players.
  • The section on the 07 game is balanced. It does not offer excuses. The links support what is said. I tried very hard to keep that section NPOV, and believe it's fine.
  • Because All Blacks is their most common name (they aren't refered to as Blacks at all btw). That is why their article is at All Blacks and not New Zealand national rugby union team. “tricolours” or “les blues” is much less common, also their strip has changed (hence the two French nicknames) so it's a little confusing to include those.
  • Are you suggesting I simply turn that into a list? Delisting the information is encouraged.
Anyway that should clarify some things. Your comments on prose are generally valid, and I'll try and get the text copy-edited. Some of your comments about the content are on things outside the scope of the article. I have, as much as possible, tried to stick to facts and let them speak for themselves, rather then filling the article with opinions, and POV. Unless there are things with near universal agreement, or with a large consensus, but in sport, this is very hard to find. - Shudde talk 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting I simply turn that into a list?. No, I am suggesting that the article is a list in prose form and therefore is not engaging to read, so it fails on criteria 1a. Some of the details you have listed above could go into the article to provide clarity and context. I found that reading the article, it raised more questions than it provided answers. Most of my suggestions were elements that could be worked into the text to make it more interesting, such as famous encounters (in the vein of "Battle of Nantes"), the players who have excelled in these matches, a better explanation of the rebel tours, etc. You have misintrepreted what I wrote: I am not suggesting separate lists, a different structure or new sections, just ways to improve the existing text.

Phanto282 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a list in prose. It has sections which are though. However, by and large, it is not. Be more specific, what exactly do you want added to the article? Players that excelled in matches can be POV, it's a team sport, obviously individual contributions are important, but often they don't warrant a mention. A better explanation of the rebel tours? The tour was of South Africa! Completely outside the scope of this article. If you want to find out more about it read New Zealand Cavaliers. If you are not going to be specific then your objections are not going to be actionable. You are saying "some of the details listed above". Which details? - Shudde talk 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate that the oppose is based on criteria 1a - that the prose is not well written and doesn't engage the reader. It needs a substantial re-write to improve the flow and get rid of "the list in prose" format. The rest of the suggestions I made were things that could be incorporated into the text to make it more engaging and informative by giving the various matches some context and clarity. What you choose to put in is up to you, you are the editor with the knowledge to do so. Writing prose of a high standard is not a matter of creating a check-list and ticking off things as you go. Perhaps an independent copy-edit and some input from other editors with an understanding of the game is the way to go.

Phanto282 (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, if it gets copyedited by another editor, I don't want you to come back and say: you need to do this, and add this, etc etc. That is why a detailed list is useful, and is what most people prefer at FAC. Also prose is different to content, and that is why I'm asking for details. Context exists in the article, but you just keep repeating the same generic lines. Saying you don't like the flow is one thing, but what is lacking in clarity? With the knowledge I have, I have added everything I believe is relevant, but you oppose because you want certain other things included, then you say "What you choose to put in is up to you, you are the editor with the knowledge to do so". You see why this is confusing? There has been input of other editors at the peer-review. If your only opposition is prose then fine, but if it's content then your opposition doesn't just come under 1a. - Shudde talk 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a French player quote (there was another already there), and have expanded some of the paragraphs you were unhappy with. Roger Davies has said he will copy-edit the article in a couple of days—if you have any specific requests please post them before he does this. - Shudde talk 10:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_All_Blacks_and_France/archive1&oldid=1138462983"