Wikipedia:Featured article review/Crusaders (rugby union)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

Crusaders (rugby union)

 * Notified: Rugby Union, WT:NZ, FAR notice March 2021

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because the history lacks info for the last 10 years comparatively, and uses sports journalese such as 'demolition'. It also lacks information on how the team came into being and the organising process for this. There is unsourced information in the statistics section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support nomination for review. The prose is clumsy in places, especially an exceptionally long sentence of 93 words about the controversy over the name following the Christchurch mosque mass shootings.  Coverage of events after 2017 seems weak compared with the rest of the article, and the records don't appear to be up to date.  I don't think this meets the high standards currently expected for Featured Articles. Marshelec (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * To add to my previous comments, I find that there is content in the article that is too much like newspaper reporting of sports eg "The Crusaders managed to salvage some pride by narrowing the loss to a 47–38 finish." In places, the tone does not seem to meet the standards of WP:TONE. Another concern is that the lead is really hard work.  The lead should be easy to read, and should encourage readers to follow on and read the main content of the article. My view is that there is too much detail in the lead, too many links, and not enough compelling story. The article is also quite long.  There are long sections of lists that interrupt the flow through the article. I wonder if many of the lists would be best removed to one or more separate list articles, or if the article content should be re-arranged to put all the lists towards the end.Marshelec (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support nomination for review. Rambling article, strongly in need of basic copy-editing and some sense of narrative. An example: a sequence of sentences strung together with "also": ''The Crusaders also hold the record for the fewest points scored in a game when they were defeated by the Highlanders 6–0 in 2009. They have also scored..." Somej (talk)
 * If I did a complete review of this article, would you be willing to address my concerns? Although I can fix up prose and formatting concerns, I do not know enough about this subject to address content problems. My process is to read the article and edit the problems as I see them; if I have any questions or notice a large concern, I will post below and ask that a more knowledgeable editor make the appropriate changes (or respond with why it needs to remain as-is, if appropriate). This process would continue until I finish my review or think the article is too far away from the FA criteria to fix. Of course, others can join this process, too, as the more people helping to fix up the article, the better. Would you be interested in helping with the review? Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the necessary subject matter expertise about Rugby Union to do much more than comment on prose and readability in this article. However, I do think that standards for Featured Articles are worth upholding. If another editor is willing to undertake a comprehensive copy edit and rework throughout the article, I would be willing to provide acknowledgement and constructive feedback. However, I am not the right person to fill in gaps in content. Overall, I think that proceeding to a formal review is probably the best outcome for this article.Marshelec (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The article as is stands doesn't cover some very major racism issues. See https://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_news/MjMzODI/Opinion/Rugby,-Racism-and-Xenophobia for example. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC - minimal engagement, and it looks like everyone agrees this needs work. Hog Farm Talk 17:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC - uncited sentences and structural problems, including the "2017-present" section which needs to be re-written into a paragraph. Minimal engagement. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * ''Issues raised in the review section include coverage, organization and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. Short, stubby paragraphs and sections: '2017-present', 'Franchise area' and 'Development team'. Unsourced sections: 'Records and achievements', 'Current internationally capped players' and 'List of All Blacks'. DrKay (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist. Poor prose in some sections, including the lede. Gaps and weaknesses in content, esp in '2017-present'.  Article is long, and structure needs review - possibly split out Records and Achievements into separate article, or other structural change to improve readability.Marshelec (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - uncited text, sections for most recent events are not well updated, as well as other issues mentioned above. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.