Wikipedia

Talk:1888–89 New Zealand Native football team/GA1

< Talk:1888–89 New Zealand Native football team
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Shudde in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 12:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I call dibs on this interesting historical sporting article. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A very interesting subject. I will enjoy learning more.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    Looks very well-written on the whole. I have copy-edited a little in a few places. I think "comprised" should be preferred to "consisted of" where possible. There are a few places where there are endashes where there should be commas or nothing at all ("Biggs – aged 18 years and 49 days – became the youngest Welsh player – a record he held until the debut of Tom Prydie in 2010". The first two dashes should be commas, the third is fine. I would change to "the youngest Welsh rugby international")I have fixed some earlier in the article myself, but the rest are still there. "Superstar player" should probably become "star player". It is confusing in the Australia section which matches are in which sports; work on making this clearer. In the Impact and Legacy section, was it the Maori All Blacks or the New Zealand Natives that were inducted into the IRB Hall of Fame?
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Generally good, but just a few things. You should wikilink Warbrick in the body as well as the lead (also Māori, Pakeha). Captions should only have full stops if they are full sentences (the caption accompanying picture at the top, for example, should not have a full stop, but the picture of Warbrick, which presently doesn't have one, should). I think the lead should be a bit longer, with another paragraph the same as the one we have now.I personally prefer emdashes to spaced endashes, but that's just me. Wikilink Lansdowne Road. Wikilink Lancashire and Yorkshire rugby teams when you first mention them. 'palpably nervous' should have quotation marks ("). See also section is not necessary and should be removed.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    "After defeating Midland Counties, the Natives returned to London." is not sourced inline. Footnotes need citations. Otherwise looks good.
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Overall a good presentation of the subject.
    B. Focused:  
    Maybe give a few words in the first sentence of the background section saying who Warbrick was (perhaps "was conceived by Joseph Warbrick, a rugby union player of Māori descent who had played for New Zealand in 1884"). Perhaps give a few words on who Eyton and Scott were when you first introduce each of them in the background section. Was Warbrick only part-Māori? "Joseph Astbury Warbrick" sounds incredibly British and in that picture he does not look un-European. Likewise regarding the other players; in the group photo most of them look white and have similarly British-looking names. Do the sources record how many were part-Māori and how many full? What is the "four three-quarter system" and why didn't Gould like it?
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    I see no issues of this sort.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    I do not see any problems with picture licensing.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    Very nice pictures that complement the article well.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Getting there; not quite up to GA yet I think, but not far away. I hope the comments above are helpful and look forward to seeing the article progress. I'll keep an eye on this and if you need a hand or further explanation, please let me know. I enjoyed reading this interesting bit of sporting and colonial history. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review. I've been pretty busy this week, but will have everything sorted within the next couple of days I hope. I'll just leave comments below on things I've addressed, and any questions/comments from me regarding the review.
  • I'm not going to bother finding a citation for note c -- this would seem to be a case of WP:BLUE
  • I should have said you didn't need to do that one; an oversight on my part. This isn't actually that kind of case as the note is saying that this article is including Ireland in the British isles category, not that it is in the British isles. In any case I think common sense says leave it as it is.
  • Yeah the sources refer to the British Isles, and at the time Ireland was part of Great Britain, but I'm usually really careful here (which is why I added the note) because some people are very sensitive about using the term Britain to describe Ireland at all. – Shudde talk 04:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm pretty sure I've fixed the image captions, I manage to never get it right, so a double check from you would be appreciated!
  • I've changed "Welsh superstar player" to "star Welsh player" -- I think this reads better
  • Citations should be fixed except to footnote b (which I'll get to later)
  • I've changed one example of ndashes to commas, however I'm a little confused on this front: WP:DASH does say that "Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas);" -- are the examples you're thinking of where this doesn't work or is confusing? I do use ndashes rather than commas or brackets sometimes – this is just my writing style more than anything, but if it's bad to do this, I do want to know!
  • There is nothing with endashes in themselves, but you shouldn't have more than one in a sentence as this can confuse the reader (unless they are parenthetical dashes, in which case there should not be more than two). Using too many of them is, in my experience, a little jarring and distracting. You should try to avoid using them instead of commas. They are, however, good as an occasional substitute for semicolons or colons. I hope this helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I've had to make a few minor changes to some of your copy-editing, esp in the Australia section (for example you changed Melbourne to Australia at one point!). Maybe check this again to ensure you're happy with it.
I'll get onto the other things promptly, and will do the lead last. Again - thanks for the review! – Shudde talk 06:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok almost done. Still have to expand the lead, but apart from that think I've addressed everything. A couple of comments:

  • I'm not sure why Arthur Gould didn't like the four three-quarter system. There is a little on this in the Gould article, however I'll ask FruitMonkey (talk · contribs) if they'll add a sentence on this here.
    • I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I hope the addition makes sense. It appears that Gould's ability (or belief in his own ability) was such that his club felt that the extra back was unwarranted, and preferred the advantage of an additional forward player. I suppose how Australia felt playing against Halfpenny on the recent Lions tour. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I have added something on the parentage of the Maori members of the Native side. It's not clear in all cases - regarding such an "English" name for a Maori, I don't think it was uncommon for Maori to adopt a British name at this time.
  • Should have added all the necessary wiki-links. Let me know if I missed any obvious ones.

Like I said, I'll expand the lead in a few hours. Let me know if there are any other remaining issues. Cheers. - Shudde talk 06:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Okay. I've made a few more tweaks I hope you are both okay with. I have tried to make clear in the first paragraph what exactly makes this team so important historically (first NZ team to do haka, first to wear all black, etc). Just one more thing—we say that these were the first NZ team to wear all black, but the 1884 NZ team in Australia also seems to be doing so here. Apart from this question mark I think this is just about there now; I'll pass after this last issue is resolved. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, that's great—passing now for GA. I think this might do well at FAC if you wish to take it there. If you do, I would add a sentence, or even half a sentence, to the end of the lead to tell the reader that the NZ rugby team ultimately adopted the haka and the all black kit just like the Natives, and indeed became called the All Blacks; maybe put something along those lines in the lead picture's caption too. If you take it to FAC please do let me know and I will try to help out there as well. Anyway, the article is looking very good now—well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the review. The copy-editing was great as well. I think the article needs a bit of a polish and probably an expansion in some areas before it's ready for FAC. I may get around to that eventually. Thanks for the offer, I'll definitely ping you if I ever decide to nominate it. - Shudde talk 09:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1888–89_New_Zealand_Native_football_team/GA1&oldid=1140249591"