Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dave Gallaher/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 [1].

Dave Gallaher

edit
Nominator(s): Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Dave Gallaher, the Irish-born captain of the first New Zealand national rugby union team to tour the British Isles and France. He was subjected to considerable criticism during the tour for what the British press considered unsportsmanlike play. Prior to playing international rugby he served in the Second Boer War, and later served in France during the First World War where he was killed at Passchendaele. Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Very strange. I was using Maxthon and the alts did not show up in edit mode, so apologies, scrub that. I'll have to see if that is a brwoser issue. Now the "dead link" connects for me too so maybe it was just a temporary server issue; forget that comment too. Thanks for pointing that out. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now when I use checklinks, the link to [4] and even clicking on your direct link above, it gives an error message "Backend not available", so I don't know what is happening there. You may want to keep an eye on it. ww2censor (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not sure what is going on. Both [5] and [6] work for me. But I've removed the deadlink tag and added an archiveurl to wayback machine just in case. If anyone else has any problems getting either of those pages it'd be good to know. -- Shudde talk 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Cliftonian

edit

Support—after reading through this a few times I am happy to support it for FA status. Thank you, Shudde, for this fine article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for taking so long to get to this, Shudde. I'll have a look through and note any thoughts as I go through.
  • I'm not sure we need to put the name David Gallagher in bold in the brackets—we effectively give the same name twice (only one letter is different) and I think it's a bit much. "David "Dave" Gallaher (born David Gallagher)" would do just as well I think. This is a minor enough point it could even be relegated to a footnote, in my opinion; after all the spelling was changed when David was four years old.
    • Done.
  • Why italics on "Original All Blacks"?
    • Removed
  • "first ever Test match" perhaps clarify that we mean the "first ever rugby Test match" (the term is usually used for cricket, in my experience)
    • Many sports have Test matches (including rugby league and netball). And the term is common outside of cricket. I've left it as is, especially as NZ didn't play Test cricket until the 1930s. I would also hope it's obvious this refers to rugby from context.
  • "contested against Australia at Sydney in 1903" don't need "contested" here; also think "in Sydney" is better than "at Sydney"
    • Changed.
  • The chronology of the lead seems to bounce around a bit. I would try to make the first paragraph a brief summary of why he's so noted (captain of Original All Blacks, near-perfect record in 1905–06 tour, etc), then a more smooth chronology from the start of his life to the end over the next paragraph or two. The last paragraph of the lead is very good as it is; I would probably leave it exactly as you have it apart from adding "the" before "New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame."
    • I've reorganised the lead. Please let me know if this is acceptable.

Early life

  • "James was a widower who had married Maria a year after the death of his first wife." when?
  • Is the "First Ramelton Meeting House" a church? Seems an odd name for one, particularly in 1874. The Gallahers were Roman Catholics, presumably?
    • No. He was baptised a Presbyterian. Later in life he attended an Anglican church. I'm not sure at what point he changed denominations or why he was baptised in one church but attended another. He definitely wasn't Catholic.
      • Ah, okay then—good thing we clarified this as I had assumed he was Catholic simply because the family came from Ireland. Attending a different church isn't that unusual, particularly among Protestants. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cliftonian: -- Thanks for the comments. Hopefully everything has been addressed.

Early rugby career

  • Did the Parnell rugby team in Auckland take its name from the Irish nationalist of that name? Considering the Gallahers' Irish origins a connection seems likely to me. The point I'm trying to make is: was this an "Irish" team?
    • Parnell is a suburb of Auckland.
  • "In 1897, Gallaher's Ponsonby club won eight of their nine matches, and also the Auckland club championship." Wasn't the second a consequence of the first?
    • The source doesn't specify. I'm not sure that championships were purely decided on a win-loss record, or whether their were finals etc. I would assume there were not finals in those days, but it'd be an assumption.
  • "Later Gallaher was selected for Auckland's three-match tour where they defeated Taranaki, Wellington and Wanganui." when?
    • clarified.

More later —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early rugby career, continued

  • "The following season was less eventful for Gallaher—he played much of the season for Ponsonby, but injury prevented his selection for Auckland" you have an emdash here, but endashes elsewhere. Either is fine (in fact I prefer emdashes, but you should be consistent in whether you use one or the other.
    • Good spot. Changed.
  • "After missing the 1898 season for Auckland, Gallaher continued to be selected for his province throughout 1899 and 1900." I know you've already made clear Auckland was his provincial side, but the lay reader will still think of Auckland as being a city rather than a province. I would change "his" to "the" here, to make clear the "Auckland" mentioned in the first part of the sentence is the province being referred to in the second.
    • Changed.

Anglo-Boer War

  • "When enlisting he put his birthday as 31 October 1876, back nearly three years" Are we sure this was down to him? It could have been a mistake by someone at the recruiting office. Also "back nearly three years" is not that clear; I would put "three years later than the actual date" or something. And "date of birth", not birthday. And we use variants of the word "enlist" twice in two sentences. Alternative ways of putting it include "Gallaher mustered into", "Gallaher attested into", and the simple "Gallaher joined". Enlisted in, not enlisted with. Perhaps put a word or two to make absolutely clear for geopolitically unaware readers that this was within the British Army, on the British side or similar
    • It was not an error, as it was never corrected by Gallaher himself later in life. It's still unknown why he did this (see my comments to Resolute below on this).
    • Are you really sure we need to specify that Gallaher was on the British side of the conflict? The alternative was that New Zealand was on the Boer side of an Anglo-Boer conflict. Surely this doesn't need to be spelled out (and if readers are interested, there are a number of wiki-links in that first sentence).
  • "Gallaher was given a send-off by his Ponsonby club" what kind of send-off? Was he the only one in the team to get one—didn't any of the others want to render service to their Queen and Country? (do we know Gallaher's motivations for enlisting? was he simply patriotic or was there some additional or other motivation? the wording seems to imply that there was no conscription in New Zealand for the Anglo-Boer War—is this correct?)
  • The picture on the right here indicates that the held the rank of corporal before they left for South Africa. Is there a reason he had this rank rather being one of the rank-and-file privates? And why don't we mention this in the body?
  • "After arriving in East London on 14 March 1901" we should probably make clear that we mean East London in South Africa and not the eastern part of the British capital. Perhaps "After disembarking in South Africa at East London" or similar.
    • Done
  • we wikilink "Northern Transvaal" to the South African Republic, but this was actually the whole Transvaal, not just the northern part.
  • "Gallaher's contingent immediately embarked for Pretoria,[39] and it was there that, under the command of General Herbert Plumer" this seems to imply that Gallaher's contingent constituted the entirety of the force under Plumer's command, when so far as I know they were just part of a much larger force under his command.
    • Clarified
  • "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company,[42] he served as a scout of the advanced guard[36] – who rode ahead of their column to look for threats." perhaps "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company, he served as a scout in the advanced guard, that part of the column that reconnoitred ahead of the main force."
    • Are you sure we want to use the word reconnoitred? I'm unsure how many lay readers will be familiar with the term.
  • Clarify Charlestown is in Natal.
    • Done
  • Perhaps add to the military part of the infobox in which years he was in each unit, for clarity.
    • I'll give this a go.
  • "he had several enemies in his sights" careful regarding POV. Perhaps "had several Boer fighters in his sights" or similar.
    • I don't think this is particularly POV (comrade could be viewed in the same way). They were were his enemy. I've changed it to your wording, but I hope it's still clear that Gallaher felt he could have fired upon them in that situation.
      • Well, yes, since we say they're Boer fighters after making clear he was not on the Boer side in the war. (having spent time in the military myself I always try to be careful about this kind of thing.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps—more anon. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cliftonian: It definitely does. Hopefully I've addressed those comments that I can. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 01:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. More soon. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of his rugby career

  • "English and Colonial forces" not British? and why capital c on "colonial"?
    • Changed
  • Copyedited
  • What's the Ranfurly Shield?
    • I've added something on this. Hopefully I've got the balance right and provided enough information without going into excessive detail.

Hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Hopefully everything's been addressed. -- Shudde talk 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cliftonian: Any chance of further comments? -- Shudde talk 11:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try later. Capping everything resolved above to make navigation easier. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1905 tour

  • "vice captain" not vice-captain?
    • changed
  • When we refer to "southern" players, we mean players from the South Island, right? (I'm not so well acquainted with NZ terminology.) If so, perhaps capitalise the "S"?
    • I don't think we should capitalise. Normally one wouldn't capitalise (if you wanted to refer to South Islanders you'd use that term, rather than southerners). Southerners probably refers to those from the south, Christchurch, Southland, Otago. There is nothing more specific about which players were unhappy, but it clearly wasn't all southern players (Billy Stead was definitely 'southern', but he didn't have a problem with Gallaher).
  • Did they perceive Gallaher's appointment as part of the alleged pro-Auckland bias, or a second, separate piece of bias?
  • "but many of the players believed that the appointments should have been chosen by the team as per the practice on the 1897 and 1903 tours to Australia" had the captain and vice-captain for these tours been chosen by election and/or consensus? did only the players take part in these procedures, or did coaching staff or anybody else take part too? I recommend changing "chosen" to "elected" and clarifying "by the team" to who exactly did the choosing.
    • The "team" here refers to the players; I can't think what else it could mean. There were only two non-players in the party, the manager, and the coach (referred to as a assistant-manager to placate those who looked down on coaching appointments).
  • "During the voyage to England the team conducted training drills" on the deck of the ship, right? Perhaps clarify this as it is to the modern reader it is a mental image very much from another era, and worth stressing.
  • "consequently accused of obstruction" during the first match against Devon, or in general?
    • He was accused to obstruction in the press following the Devon match -- no mention is made of accusations by players or spectators during match. The article does state The British press, looking to find fault in New Zealand's play, continued to criticise Gallaher throughout the tour in one of the paragraph immediately proceeding description of the Devon match. Is is unclear that the criticism continued throughout the tour? -- Shudde talk 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team were not warmly welcomed by administrators from the Scottish Football Union (SFU), the governing body for rugby union in Scotland; they did not receive an official welcome and were greeted by only one official on their arrival in Edinburgh." Why?
    • Later the article does state this all may have been because of David Bedell-Sivright, the Scottish captain of the 1904 British Isles team, but in all honesty, the SFU were known for being incredibly conservative and behaving a little like that.
  • "the SFU refused a guarantee for the match, but eventually promised the entire gate to the New Zealanders instead" what does this mean? What's a "guarantee"? Did the New Zealanders ultimately get the entire gate as promised?
    • I've preceded guarantee with "financial". They got the gate. I think guarantee was just a guaranteed fee; all it meant was a reduced risk for the New Zealanders. The tour was quite a financial risk -- no one knew what kind of crowds they were going to get before they toured (turned out they got great crowds and it was a financial success). So I think most teams gave them a guarantee to try and ensure the tour was financially viable.
  • "despite the close score-line, the New Zealanders were clearly the better of the two sides" says who? doesn't sound very neutral to me. attribute this opinion
  • "a number of their best players, including Stead, were unavailable" because they were injured?
  • "The match was closely contested, but Wales were the better side." says who?
  • Who's Bob Deans?
    • I see you've addressed this.
  • "There was no provision for injury replacements." In this match specifically, or in rugby union in general? The latter, right?
    • Yeah in general. But it's more complicated than that. I know that in New Zealand and Australia they allowed injury replacements in certain matches, but they didn't in Britain and Ireland at the time. I don't want to make a sweeping statement about it (which could be wrong) so I'd rather leave it as is.
  • Why did they play against British Columbia in San Francisco, so far away from Canada?
    • None of my sources are specific on this. They call them "exhibition games", and the fact that Seddon organised the North American leg makes me think it can't have just been coincidence that they were in San Francisco. But there is nothing specific. I think they travelled down from Vancouver specifically for the two matches.
  • "It "remains one of the most influential books produced in the realms of rugby literature"." who says? attribute this weighty quote.
  • ""Excessive striving for victory introduced an unhealthy spirit of competition, transforming a character-building 'mock fight' into 'serious fighting'. Training and specialization degraded sport to the level of work."" who is this quoting?

Auckland and All Black selector

First World War

  • OK

Leadership and personality

  • I would move this section to the end, after the memorial section, so we end on the nice peroration about nobody having a disparaging word about him.
    • Done

I hope this helps. I'm sorry for having taken so long to get through this, but I'm glad I have done. A worthy subject indeed. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another suggestion—I realise you perhaps want the close-up photo for the First World War section, but it occurs to me the image we have there at the moment doesn't show his rank. This one, for example, shows his corporal stripes and seems to me a rather better representation of Gallaher in the context of his WWI service. Just something to consider. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cliftonian: Thanks for your comments as always. I've still got to double check some of your copyedits, but I have replied where I can above. Thanks again. -- Shudde talk 10:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capped resolved above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your support and the useful comments and edits. -- Shudde talk 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Resolute

edit
Resolved commentary
*FWIW, I disagree with Cliftonian. David "Dave" Gallaher (born David Gallaher) is redundant twice over. If both names are desired, "Dave Gallaher (born David; 30 October 1873...) is probably best, imo.
  • "The next year played in their first home Test" - missing word? "The next year, he played in..."?
    • Fixed
  • I would suggest giving the year of the Originals tour at some point in that lead paragraph. Probably where he retires, since you've moved back and forth in time by that point.
    • I've inserted a date early on.
  • There is a bit of a strange arrangement to the third paragrpah of the lead. He captained New Zealand to a 34-1 record, then we note he was criticized by the press, then we switch back to his being praised for his leadership. Then we go back to the criticism. It's all jarring. Perhaps move the complaints from the British press to the fourth paragraph to join up with the note that his play contributed to strain between the All Blacks and the Home Nations?
  • Is there a reason why the infobox ends with a second shaded header of "Rugby union career"?
    @Resolute: Three separate threads were subsequently raised on that matter, by Shudde, Lingzhi and Zyxw. I've consolidated them at Template talk:Infobox rugby biography#Error: Template displays duplicate "career" headers for coaches who were also players. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a start... I'll try to review more tomorrow.Resolute 00:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute: Cheers. -- Shudde talk 06:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • "In 1897, Gallaher's Ponsonby club won eight of their nine matches, and also the Auckland club championship." - just a thought, maybe: "In 1897, Gallaher's Posonby club won eight of their nine matches en route to the Auckland club championship"?
    • Changed.
  • Do we know why Gallaher gave a birth year of 1876 instead of 1873 when enlisting for the Boer War?
    • Elliott (2012, p 68) mentions that Gallaher listed a later birth year, but doesn't try and address why. McLean (1987, p 36) says the reason "would now be impossible to guess" but then goes on to speculate a bit widely. None of the sources I've read do better than speculate on the matter. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time Billy Wallace is mentioned, I had no idea who he was or why his opinion was important.
    • Clarified
  • As a thought: Put the image of the All Blacks' return to New Zealand at the end of the France, North America and return section. Keeps it in chronological order, and also puts a little more space between the quote box and image.
    • Good idea. Moved.

Finishing off tomorrow, hopefully. Resolute 02:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part the third...

  • What is meant by "he coached at age group level for Ponsonby"? I'm guessing that "age group" is the New Zealand equivalent of what we would call "minor" sports, but is there a link for that?
    • It's not minor sports as I understand it (List of developmental and minor sports leagues?). "Age Grade" may be a British English term (see [9], [10], [playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?subsection=64] etc) but I know it's used frequently in New Zealand and Australia. It's where restricted by age, for example Under 20 years old. An example would be the World Rugby Under 20 Championship. I'm not sure what a clear term for this would be in American/Canadian English. Any suggestions? -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we're alright then. There isn't really a North American equivalent to that term. "minor hockey", for instance, would reference youth hockey. At older age-limited levels, it is usually given by age limit much the way Europe does - U17, U18, Junior/U20. I can't think of an equivalent term for "age grade", but it can be figured out in context. Resolute 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and the All Blacks eventually won two, and drew one, of the three Tests." - comma poisoning, and "eventually" doesn't really add anything here. Perhaps "...and of three Tests, the All Blacks won two and drew the third" or something similar?
    • Changed.
  • To that end, is "Tests" always capitalized?
    • Not always -- both capitalised and not can be found out there. It seems to depend on the house style adopted by the publisher (see [11] and [12]). Normally I go with whatever convention has been established in an article. -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his period as national selector, New Zealand played 50 games (including 16 Tests), won 44, lost 4 and drew 2. They won 13 Tests while drawing two and losing one." - I found this confusing as you went from games to tests to games to tests again.
    • Reworded. Also realised I had violated WP:NUMERAL here.
  • A slight bit of WP:PROSELINE in the second paragraph of First World War. Also, he was promoted to temporary sergeant on 2 June and that promotion was confirmed the day prior on 1 June? Or did you mean 1 July?
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I've made some changes and corrections and also added a bit about the voyage.
  • "...aged almost 44" is really weird to me. Personally, I would go with "...less than a month before his 44th birthday" or something. However if that is normal for New Zealand English, please disregard.
  • In the leadership section, Terry MacLean notes that there were no complaints from a "New Zealand angle". That sort of implies complaints elsewhere. Was his legacy from the UK perspective ever spoken of? Or did the old complaints end when he retired as a player? I'm rather expecting the latter given the lack of a return tour of the UK in Gallaher's life time.
    • Nearly all of the references regarding his leadership come from fellow players (understandably). He was pretty viciously attacked by the press in England and Wales at the time of the tour. New Zealand was also looked down upon quite a lot (rugby was more of a working-class rather than upper-class game in New Zealand) and the unhappiness with the wing-forward continued until it was outlawed. His reputation has definitely been rehabilitated, but I'm not sure exactly when this happened. His death was reported in the British press: there is an interesting article here that was published in 1918. They definitely hadn't forgotten about his role as wing-forward (he was described as an "obstructionist") but it seems the attitude towards him had softened a lot. -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: Random check of cites 26, 57, 92, 137 and 176 show no concerns.
    • Though site 57 gives Letterkenny's home as "Dave Gallaher Memorial Park".
      • Yeah some sources omit the "Memorial" and others don't. I've added it though. -- [13] [14]

Great article overall, as expected. Cheers! Resolute 00:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. As always your input and feedback is greatly appreciated. -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

edit
    • Body text needs nbsp between the dd and mm of ddmmyyyy• Lingzhi♦(talk) 07:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion the lead goes into excessive detail.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 07:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The punctuation of the sentence that begins with "Since the selection" (mixed dashes and commas) is a bit difficult to parse• Lingzhi♦(talk) 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain why being "unsuitably dressed" was important.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In direct quotes that are full sentences, the period goes inside the quotation marks."• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know nothing about rugby, but it seems that their training and strategies had as much or more to do with their success as anything else...but this point is not strongly developed, and their innovations were not detailed. Am I wrong in these perceptions?• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lingzhi: Thanks for your comments. I'll deal with the lead in the next couple of hours. Regarding your last comment. There are many factors that contributed to their success. The Original All Blacks#Innovations and tactics goes into some detail (but it's not comprehensive). I tried not to go into excessive detail regarding tangential elements of the tour, and instead attempted to focus on Gallaher's role and experiences. It's a hard balance to achieve, and maybe I've swung the pendulum too far in one direction. If the article has given the impression that Gallaher's leadership was the main, or sole reason for their success, then I'm going to need to clarify that. It was important, but there were other important factors as well. What is the impression you got? Thanks for your comments. Hope to have them all address in the next 24 hours. -- Shudde talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added a link at the beginning of the Aftermath and impact section that will hopefully direct readers to a place where there is more information on this kind of thing. -- Shudde talk 08:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lingzhi: I'm now reasonably satisfied with the changes I have made (diff). I've trimmed down the lead and added enough to hopefully satisfy you regarding why the All Blacks were so successful on their 1905–06 tour. Shudde talk 06:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Shudde:I have free time only in spurts. Haven't looked at all your changes yet (sorry!), but please see the article's talk page for a first stab at a Lead section. You are NOT required to adopt my suggestions; don't feel intimidated just because this is a FAC and I am reviewing it. Plus please do tweak my suggested Lead at will; I was in a rush when I put it together. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Lingzhi: I've rewritten the lead using your suggestion. I've made a few changes and corrections. I think it's important to open with the fact he captained the Originals -- many people would only know that about him (and that he died in the First World War). Anyway give it a read and let me know what you think. -- Shudde talk 04:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I chenged your version again for the sole reason that I'm trying to avoid mentioning 1905 twice.... look again and see if it's OK... Additionally, when I made the changes I knew that you would revert to putting Originals first, because (I assume) you're an NZ editor and a fan, and that is what NZ fans (and maybe all rugby fans) think of first. And that's OK. But from the perspective of a non-UK, non-NZ, non-fan of rugby, "The Originals" mean exactly nothing to me, whereas being in three different Halls of Fame is notability written in flaming sky-high letters. But again, it's OK. It is not an important point. I am just explaining why I moved the Halls from the nether regions of the lead to the peak. So look at my changes again and see if they are OK. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: I'm happy with the changes. I can see why you introduced him in that way, but I'd rather make explicit why he was inducted into those Halls of Fame nice and early, rather than say he was honoured for something and then state what that something was. Anyway I'm comfortable with how it reads now. -- Shudde talk 07:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Hey. Is there any chance that over the next couple of days you'll have the opportunity to give the article another look? Still waiting on a source check anyway so not urgent. -- Shudde talk 05:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

edit

@FAC coordinators: Are you going to require a source review? Should I request one? -- Shudde talk 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

edit
  • There are quite a few external links - do you think they all qualify under the external link guideline?
  • The publisher of the allblacks.com website should be listed (I think it is the NZRU)

*The publisher of the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography should be listed.

Reference formatting otherwise looks all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding spot checks (hard as much is offline), sentences cited to the news sources are all faithful to the sources, though this one [16] mentions the book rather than the stadium. And doesn't support material in the sentence it comes at the end of (did a sentence on the book Gallaher wrote go missing...)

Looked at 3 allblacks web refs - all looked in order (i.e. they matched up page to source)

@Casliber: Thanks for the checks. I think I've addressed everything; that link you mention it was a harv reference error. The footnote was intended to point to the Horrell article not the Jenkins one. Seems to be working fine now. Thanks again. -- Shudde talk 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to have the publisher as well as the name of the site, not instead of (so "allblacks.com" goes in the "work=" parameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Done. -- Shudde talk 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Choice bro'! all good then.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Appreciate the time you spent doing this. -- Shudde talk 02:34, 17 August 2015 (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/Dave_Gallaher/archive1&oldid=1138458519"