Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/England national rugby union team

< 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 17:10, 24 September 2007.

England national rugby union team edit

This is an article on England's national rugby union team. They are currently World Champions and am aiming to have this FA before the end of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. It's currently a good article and meets all FA criteria; covers the topic comprehensively, is well referenced, and well written (was recently copy-edited by GringoInChile. Thanks. - Shudde talk 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now as I found quite a lot of issues.

  • Don't think you need to mention they currently hold the Calcutta Cup in the lead.
  • Don't need ref in lead as everything in it should be mentioned later.
  • Don't need to mention losing to Scotland in the lead.
  • "Following their 2003 Six Nations Grand Slam" not sure you need this in the lead and you need to explain what the grand slam is.
  • "England racked up their largest victory" "England recorded their largest victory" would be better.
  • "including a victory over the Springboks" who are the Springboks?
  • "England lost 45&ndash29." oops!
  • "suffered a humiliating defeat" POV
  • "England had the consolation of did winning the Triple Crown" remove "did" this doesn't make sence.
  • "England were one of the tournament favourites" why "one of"
  • "left the final score at 20-17" made isdead of left would be better and "at" is redundant.
  • "On 8 December, the English team greeted 750,000 supporters on their victory parade through London before meeting Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace." citation needed.
  • Very little about the last three years.
  • Why is Swing Low, Sweet Chariot a sub section in Twickenham?
  • Rename Twickenham section Stadium or Stadia and added something about other Grounds they have played home games at.
  • Nothing about the dramatic change to the strip in 2003.
  • Don't need other teams Six Nation records.
  • "They then defeated Wales in their quarter-final" "then" is redundant.
  • Not sure the Club versus country sub-section should be in the Training section.
  • Never liked see also sections. In this case it doesn't need Calcutta Cup, Six Nations and Triple Crown because they are all mention in the article so you can link them there. See if you can find a way to mention the rest in the article.
  • Ref #17 empty
  • Ref #18 #22 #23 #25 not dated
  • Not sure rugbydata.com being used as a source.

Buc 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've dealt with most things. Please strike what you are happy with. Some of your comments I disagree with though:
  • I think the Calcutta Cup should definitely be mentioned. It's been contested since 1881, and is very notable.
  • Yes but you don't need to mention that they currently hold it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? How does it make the lead better to omit it? It only adds a few words to the lead yet gives some important information. - Shudde talk 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really notable enough. Buc 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. It's entirely notable that England currently hold the trophy over their oldest opponents. The Rambling Man 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grand slam is wiki-linked, so havn't removed references to it.
  • That South Africa are nicknamed the Springboks is mentioned earlier in the history section.
  • They were one of the tournament favourites along with the All Blacks. I'll find a reference for this and add it.
  • There is not heaps on the last three years because don't want to place undue weight. There is more information at History of the England national rugby union team.
  • Sweet low is there because it's a Twickenham tradition that has only more recently extended to away fixtures.
  • It's not derectly ralted to Twickenham. They don't sign it because they are at Twickenham. If you check the Twickenham article you'll see only a brief mention of it.
  • The Twickenham Stadium article is not the best source to determine if it's directly related. I'll quote the Rugby Football Union's page "the song that had now become synonymous with Twickenham and the England team" - it is directly related with Twickenham. Hence why it's there. - Shudde talk 02:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twickenham is their only home stadium. They have played their home matches there exclusively since it was constructed in 1913. This is mentioned in that section.
  • Then change the name.
  • They've played home matches there exclusively for 95 years! It is mentioned they played at other venues in the section, but what you are objecting to is the section name? I think Twickenham is much better, even though they havn't played there exclusively for their entire history. It's so much more notable then other grounds that having it as the section title is most appropriate. - Shudde talk 02:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What dramatic change to the strip are you referring to? I'll add it if you can give me more information.
  • The skin tight kits that were ment to make it harder to tackle them. Buc 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [1]\[reply]
  • The other Six Nations records are part of the template. It's the same format used in France national rugby union team which is FA. I think it's good, as it adds context, and allows comparisons with the other Six Nations teams.
  • I'm happy to move the club vs country section. Where do want it to go?
  • "See also" is a pretty standard thing. I've removed what I can.
  • Ref 22, 25 don't have dates i can add. And 23 is dated? I'm not sure if the numbers have changed or not. But there are none around that I can see that need to be dated that *can* be dated.
  • I think rugbydata.com is a good source, it's neutral, non-controversial. Any reason it wouldn't be considered acceptable?
Anyway hope this helps. Still have to add those references. Will let you know when I've done that. - Shudde talk 03:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those references have now been added. - Shudde talk 03:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Support - good work. The Rambling Man 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Oppose at the moment, several comments...here we go.[reply]

  •  Done There appears a general proliferation of parenthesised comments, this could be smoothed out into the prose where possible.
  •  Done "...spread the game..." don't like this expression.
  •  Done Why is Century capitalised?
  • Is it worth explaining something about the scoring in those early matches? Was it one point for a try? Especially since scores in the article range from 4-1 to 134-0!
  •  Done "...vanquish..." - bit POV.
  •  Done Any reason why New Zealand Natives is in italics?
  •  Done "three all" - I'd suggest it's just written "3–3".
  •  Done World War I should be referred to as First World War. Similar for WWII.
  •  Done Check references for placement in accordance with WP:CITE, e.g. [20].
  •  Done Presumably you mean a full stop after [21], not a comma, unless something's gone missing?
  •  Done Grand Slam or Grand slam or grand slam? Consistency required.
  •  Done "re-admittion"? admission I guess..
  •  Done Ensure all scores separated with en dash, per WP:DASH, esp. in World Cup section.
  •  Done "in pool play" - non expert wouldn't get this, e.g. is it something to do with swimming?!
  •  Done "<"RWC03Favourites">Paul, Gregor. "RWC 2003: The All Blacks peak too early", nzherald.co.nz, August 26, 2007. Retrieved on September 2, 2007. </ref>" - guess you're missing a "ref name=" there!
  •  Done "...England's heaviest ever defeat to Ireland." - cite it.
  •  Done "The first match to be played at the redeveloped Twickenham was the fourth on Sunday November 5, 2006 against the All Blacks." - not sure I understand this? ..was the fourth...?
  •  Not done "Currently the strip is manufactured by Nike and O2 is the shirt sponsor." - cite.
  •  Done Consider making all suitable tables sortable.
  •  Done Cite hall of famers.
  •  Done Trim external links per WP:EL.

Let me know if I can help with anything, and give me a shout if you need a re-review. Hope that lot helps. The Rambling Man 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why should World War I be referred to as First World War? Our article is at World War I. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Because this article should use British English and we loathe the American WWI and its sequel WWII! The Rambling Man 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I've addressed everything I can, and have a few questions/comments:
  • I've removed the parenthesis bits at the beginning of the history section. If there are any more you want me to deal with let me know.
  • Is there a specific reason you don't like "spread the game"? I think "promote the game" would be inferior as many of them weren't actively trying to recruit players/teams, merely trying to play the sport for their own benefit. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
  • You may be right about the scoring in those early matches. The scoring system did change a lot, and was even different in different countries. Maybe having something about tries scored would be better? So for example "they won by x tries to y and the final score was whatever". I don't really know the best way to go about this.
    • It definitely needs explanation, perhaps your x tries to y works best. The Rambling Man 07:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few things here and there. Let me know if it's acceptable. - Shudde talk 10:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put New Zealand Natives in italics because it's a name, rather then description, but i'll change it if you like.
  • I've checked the dashes, please point out more if you spot them.
    • Yes, I found a few more, but I've fixed them for you. Good old me! The Rambling Man 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wiki-linked pool to group stage to avoid confusion.
  • According to Wikipedia:When to cite the O2 and Nike thing prob doesn't need to be cited. It's pretty clear if you watch a game that it's correct. I'll dig up a citation for it anyway though.
Hopefully thats it. Please strike what you're happy with. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Thanks. - Shudde talk 03:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, well you've covered most of my points well. I'm still not happy with the opening two sentences in the History section (for one thing, it doesn't read particularly nicely, two short sentences) but I can't, at the moment, think of a suitable alternative. The Rambling Man 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed these first two sentences in the History section to the following:
The expansion of rugby in the first half of the 19th century was impulsed by ex-pupils from many of England's private schools, especially Rugby, who, upon finishing school, took the game with them to universities, to London, and to the counties. GringoInChile 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. The Rambling Man 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cometstyles (talk · contribs)

Support - Its well written . well sourced (needs a bit more citations though) and well referenced and basically as Shudde mentioned, it is FA Worthy but to elaborate more:

  • Calcutta Cup should be mentioned at the top since it has been around for over 120 years making it one of the oldest competition in the rugby circuit
  • Explaining what Grand Slam or Springboks is a bit silly since the link is clickable and if someone wants to know more, they can do so by "clicking it"
  • Most rugby related articles are hard to cite because most sources are not print media and the organization in charge of keeping the records is doing a lame job
  • Yes as per WP:DASH , the points system has to be fixed but regarding the explanation of points given for tries and penalty is very important since that is the only way to tell people why the matches in the old days were seemingly low-scoring...--Cometstyles 21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from user Arachrah 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strip is incorrect. Either use the traditional all white or the current squirly monstrosity, but not the pre-RWC design. Is it worth mentioning that the white strip comes from School House at Rugby.

England have not won the six nations 25 times - as it only became Six Nations when Italy joined in 2000, some clarification is needed. The 25 refers to the entire history Home Nations, Five Nations, Four Nations, Five Nations and Six nations tournaments as described in the next paragraph.

I would start with the first test against Scotland. Mention Calcutta Cup there. Then put all the six nation stuff together

England have played two home games at Huddersfield - against Netherlands and Italy in the 1998 qualification tournament should this be mentioned here?

The Swing Low Sweet Chariot section is almost certainly wrong - but it has been repeated and written up so often that it has come to be true.

It had been sung in rugby clubs with actions since before my father's time let alone mine and was sung regularly at Middlesex Sevens towards the end of the day as the crowds got rowdier.

However, the appearance of several fast black wingers in the 80s - including the Middlesex 7s final featuring Quins Andy Harriman and Rosslyn Park's "Chariots" Ofiah (before he 'went North') lead to its singing being noticed by journalists and taken for racist. I think this was May 1987, but it might have been 1986. It was definitely written up with mention of SLSC in I think the Times.

There should be a short section on the A side - now branded England Saxons - and the England Sevens Squad. I know that there is a link in the Links section.

Arachrah 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the strip. As for your other comments. The Six Nations template is used in several articles, it does not have a title indicating that it is only referring to Six Nations titles, I do believe it is fairly clear because it lists the total number of tournaments (in the top line) that it is Six Nations, Five Nations, and Home Nations tournaments. I will add something to the template's talk page, and see if a consensus can be reached however.
  • I will add something to the Twickenham section about Huddersfield, but it's not very notable (they weren't major Tests) information, so it won't be much.
  • As for the Swing Low thing, the information that is in the article comes from the RFU's website, specifically the Rugby Museum's microsite. Some of what you have said is not directly related to Twickenham or England rugby, but could probably be included in the Swing Low, Sweet Chariot article (if an acceptable source could be found).
  • Can you please be more specific about "I would start with the first test against Scotland. Mention Calcutta Cup there. Then put all the six nation stuff together" I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
  • The England Saxons and England Sevens team's should not have their own sections in this article. This is consistent with other national rugby union team articles (see All Blacks and France national rugby union team). Those two teams are not the England team, and have no significant relationship with them that warrants inclusion. Why not include a section on England women's national rugby union team as well? What about age-group teams? The list could go on, but I really think they are not necessary. All these things should be mentioned in Rugby union in England where all representative teams can be included.
Thanks. - Shudde talk 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Raul - I believe I have addressed Arachrah's concerns. Although he didn't oppose the FAC he hasn't responded, and his last contribution was to this page. I've left a message on his talk page asking him to respond. - Shudde talk 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two weeks since Arachrah made his comments, and I replied within 36 hours. I don't know if it is worth waiting to much longer for a reply. - Shudde talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arachrah 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Sorry been away. Looks better. Still not convinced by the swing low story - even if RFU are peddling it - but cannot find any written references earlier. Everyone who remembers singing it was drunk at the time! So I may as well Support.[reply]

  • Support It looks good to me. Well written and referenced. Good work. Cvene64 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with one reservation... Unless my memory deceives Swing Low was a Rugby club singsong standard before it was adopted by England -- due to the "hilarious" obscene hand gestures that accompany the lyrics. To attribute this to a group of Bendictine choirboys seems deeply unlikely (and is not supported by the cite). -- GWO —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, an excellent and solidly referenced article. --Stormie 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think she's ready now. So far, 6 Supports and only one Oppose that was subsequently withdrawn after concerns were dealt with. I think it's time to move this one to FA. GringoInChile 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/England_national_rugby_union_team&oldid=1136097967"