Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rugby World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rugby World Cup

The article has Good status, has been a GA collaboration, a RU collaboration and has had a peer review, I feel its ready to be nominated for feature status. Cvene64 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectSupport - Not bad at all, but several small problems. Jeronimo 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Table of tournaments is only half-filled (are the three upcoming events, especially the 2015 one, really necessary?).
  • "Media coverage" covers only television, not "media" in general. It is unclear what global cumulative audience means (I understand, but others may not). More should/could be said about popularity in general, and also about the attendance of matches. The statement in the lead section (about being the 3rd largest sports event) could also be elaborated upon. For starters, I think several other events claim similar popularity (Cricket World Cup, Commonwealth Games, Tour de France).
  • The hosts section is rather strange and doesn't add a lot to already given info. Perhaps it can be expanded to tell something about the bid process, or maybe just merged into the article.
  • The external links should have explanation about some of the sites. IRB.com is not clear if you don't know the abbreviation. Linking to the French RWC site seems rather unnecessary, too.
  • I'm always somewhat suspicious of articles only citing web pages, especially with a subject as popular as this. I cannot require you tou have any written material as references, but I would like to see some "further reading". Surely several good books have been written about the (allegedly) 3rd most popular sporting event in the world?

Thanks for your comments, I have made the appropriate changes;

Table of tournaments is only half-filled (are the three upcoming events, especially the 2015 one, really necessary?). Removed 2015, left the other two as they have hosts.

"Media coverage" covers only television, not "media" in general. It is unclear what global cumulative audience means (I understand, but others may not). More should/could be said about popularity in general, and also about the attendance of matches. The statement in the lead section (about being the 3rd largest sports event) could also be elaborated upon. For starters, I think several other events claim similar popularity (Cricket World Cup, Commonwealth Games, Tour de France). Attendances written about, gave link to another page so users can compare and so on, changed the lead a little to downplay the claim to third.

The hosts section is rather strange and doesn't add a lot to already given info. Perhaps it can be expanded to tell something about the bid process, or maybe just merged into the article. Removed redundant info regarding 87, expanded on secret ballod/controversial voting.

The external links should have explanation about some of the sites. IRB.com is not clear if you don't know the abbreviation. Linking to the French RWC site seems rather unnecessary, too. They are all good now.

I'm always somewhat suspicious of articles only citing web pages, especially with a subject as popular as this. I cannot require you tou have any written material as references, but I would like to see some "further reading". Surely several good books have been written about the (allegedly) 3rd most popular sporting event in the world? Well I personally didn use any texts to write the article, but if you would like me to list a couple of notable books on it under "Further reading", would that be okay? Please let me know if there is anything else that can be improved on. Thanks. Cvene64 09:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see some "paper" material mentioned. But that doesn't count as a real objection, so I changed my vote to Support. Jeronimo 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Well researched, citations where needed, not painfully long like so many other featured articles. Very good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arguss (talk • contribs).
• First, this did quite well on a citation spot check. (Results here). The prose, however, is clunky, so I have to object for now. --Robth^Talk 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested on my talk, I'll give some examples of how the prose needs to be cleaned up. One paragraph that jumps out is the second paragraph in the history section. Some examples from there that need to be fixed:
    • It is thought that the defining prospect of such a tournament was when...: Nonsensical. Perhaps "It is thought that the defining moment in the creation of such a tournament came when...".
    • ...approved the inaugural Rugby World Cup to be jointly staged in Australia and New Zealand: approved...to is not grammatical. "...approved the inaugural cup, which was to be jointly hosted by Australia and New Zealand", perhaps?
    • though the proposition was met with much opposition, namely from the British and Irish members.: 'Namely' is the wrong word here. "...opposition, led by the British and Irish delegations", would be a better phrasing.
      • The sentence containing the past two examples is run-on, and should be broken up.
    • The vote was won through the support of South Africa who had the deciding vote. They voted in favor of the idea even though they knew they would not be allowed to participate, due to the international sports boycott against the apartheid regime.: Repetitive use of words ('they' and 'vote'), poor punctuation, overall poorly structured. One better phrasing would be: "The decisive vote to approve the proposal came from the South African delegates, who voted in favor despite knowing that the international sports boycott on their country's apartheid regime would prevent their team from participating in the tournament."
  • Issues of this sort need to be fixed throughout. --Robth^Talk 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have made the suggested changes as well as a number of others that have dealt with the issues. Cvene64 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Its improved, but not done yet; all I did was glance at the lead, and I still saw several errors. Perhaps get someone who hasn't edited the article before to go through and copyedit it? It can be difficult to copyedit a text you've been working on. --Robth^Talk 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know what you mean. Thanks. Cvene64 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support- I see no problems to prevent it from FA status. It read well and was well sourced ect. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support can't see any reasons to deny it FA hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per Above 11kowrom 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)