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


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)
 * 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)
 * 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!).
 * I'll wait for the outcome of the WP:RU discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I've created something, doesn't go to disambig any more. - Shudde   talk  07:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some of the minor changes. --Stormie (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remove the green check mark images.--Laser brain (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the instructions at WP:FAC, avoid breaking up reviewer commentary and the use of graphics, and please remove the green check marks. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this rivalry notable enough to have it's own article? Buc (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are very few test strength rugby union teams in the world so there's no reason to doubt the notability of this article.  If you're doubting the notability of this summary of 50-odd matches over the past 100-odd years then check out articles like Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1995-96 - there are hundreds of them of which I guess you'd question the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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&mdash;if you have any specific requests please post them before he does this. - Shudde   talk  10:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.