Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/France national rugby union team

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 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] France national rugby union team

"Easily passed" good article criteria and is visibly similar to All Blacks which received FA status. The red links for notable players are in the process of being eliminated.GordyB 10:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is a foreign language Featured Article (in French - see here) upon which much of the English version is based. - Shudda ^talk 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Looks good - a few minor points though:

• It frequently refers to the All Blacks without any expansion early on for non-rugby readers that this is the New Zealand national team.

• Added something in the lead. - Shudda ^talk 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the History section - you need a small comment (even if only a half sentence) to explain why professionalism was an expulsion offence. The last paragraph in the history section also needs some major proofreading - there are some non-grammatical constructions in there.

• I've hopefully clarified that - let me know if it needs further work. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Home Grounds section could do with some reorganisation of text and copyediting - the section on former grounds needs a separate paragraph, probably before the 2007 World Cup section.

• I think this is better; just let me know. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notable Players: Other than the redlinks, which should be made blue, explanation is needed for the abbreviations in the "Six nations" column of the table.

• I think I've explained that better. I'll removed the redlinks a soon as I can. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I can't see much that is missing, though perhaps a paragraph on age-group national sides might be useful. The main concern is that much of it needs copyediting for grammar, punctuation, etc. And that should be easily fixed. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I did a copy-edit before GordyB nominated the article. Obviously I've not picked up the things you are mentioning - please let me know specifically where there is a problem. Are you sure it's neccessary to mention the the age-group teams here? I'm not sure much can be said except for the fact they exist. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• At the very least it would be useful to have a link to an article which deals with them - even if, like some of the player articles, it's likely to be a stub. As to the copyediting, there are still a few phrases here and there that seem a bit stilted, and I caught a couple of typos as I was reading through it (which I corrected at the time). If I get time later today I'll go through it and do a small bit of further copyediting, see if I can smooth anything out. The improvements look good, BTW, though I may make a slight tweak there too... the stadium one, still flows a little oddly. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• What about adding some links to the see also section? Would that do? - Shudda ^talk 03:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• That would probably be fine. It's mainly that the Under-19s are mentioned re: the national training centre, so there should be something about them, even if only a link. BTW, I have just finished a fairly comprehensive copyedit - almost all of it very minor tweaks. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• One more thing - the cost of the National Training Centre is only given in pounds. Some local equivalen (be it Francs or Euros) is also needed. Grutness...wha? 07:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a conversion (as per manual of style here). The U19 team doesn't have an article. Should I create one? - Shudda ^talk 05:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Reading through the text, I've spotted several issues:

*"since expanded into the Six Nations championship" (from History). You've mentioned this already in the lead, and mention it again later in the text. I think a note of when it expanded in 2000 is sufficient.

• "Despite not playing the Home Nations, France created a winning streak which still stands today." Although I understand what the sentence is getting at, it's a little ambigious; it sounds like France have won every game since.
• A little more information on this winning streak would be welcome. It's a little unclear; who was it against and for how many games did it last?
• A few dash issues throughout the text. If I remember correctly, short dashes shouldn't be used to separate text. Read WP:DASH or replace with commas.
• "was not completed due to fighting". Unclear; where was the fighting (on the field? After the game?) and who was involved?
• I reckon Northern hemisphere is a low-value link; it doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
• How many points did the French win by in 1959? Might be worth noting, and it'll expand what it a short paragraph.
• "Five nations" should be Five Nations? (third paragraph of History)
• "The 1970s were also a successful for France"; "decade" between successful and for I'm guessing?
• "The 1980s saw another successful era for the French". A little repetitive; the previous paragraph starts with essentially the same construction.
• "The representation of the rooster was first realistic and detailed, later simplified, and is now abstract and stylized." When? This sentence is somewhat vague.
• "French supporters have been known to release roosters on the playing field before games." Needs a citation; I find that hard to believe :)
• "it is a rugby tradition that the home side changes its strip in the event of a colour clash" Also needs a citation. Also, I would move it out of the brackets; it appears to form a separate sentence.
• The "Word cup venues" subsection seems to quite short; there's a one-line and two-line paragraphs present. Could do with some expansion.
• "Italy would later join in 2000"; another mention of the difference. I don't think it's worthy of inclusion here.
• "The Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy is also awarded during the Six Nations, to the winner of the match between France and Italy." Needs rephrasing, and the sentence doesn't flow with the rest of the paragraph; upon first reading, I wondered why it was mentioned.
• "Updated '3 May 2007'". I'm assuming it'll be updated after each Six Nations? If so, the information doesn't really change.
• In the "National Rugby Centre", why not remove (NRC) and change the only mention of the acronym to centre?
• With the references (and external links), put a space between (French) and the links.

That should be enough for now. If you don't agree with any of the comments, let me know! CloudNine 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done most of that now. A couple of things though:

• I have not been able to find a when for "The representation of the rooster was first realistic and detailed, later simplified, and is now abstract and stylized." I'll keep trying though, the sentence was a translation of that on the French language article. So Ill contact a French contributor for help. If not I'll remove the sentence.
• The World Cup venues section was added after Grutness's comments (see above). I'd prefer not to make any more changes there if it's going to have him want to undo them. Any specific problems other then it's too short would be good, then a consensus will be easier to reach.

• On re-reading it, it's fine. You don't need to change it.

• The sentence on the Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy has been reworded, yet I have left it where it is. It's contested during the Six Nations so I can't think where else it should be included?

• Ok, it looks good now.

• I've removed (NRC) but have kept the name the same. That's what it's called in the refs I used.
• The updated thing is part of the template. I will add a comment on the templates talk page (it's uesd on other national rugby union team pages) and if theres no objections will remove it.

• This has been removed. - Shudda ^talk 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully everything else has been addressed. Let me know if there are any further problems. - Shudda ^talk 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have no fears about me wanting to undo the WC venues section - I only felt t needed to be separated from the French home venues - it made more sense to keep the world cup venues in one place separate from France's traditional home venues, especially since France will not be competing at many of this year's World Cup venues. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied above. CloudNine 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. All my outstanding comments have been addressed. CloudNine 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments In the lead;

• Rugby union is a popular sport in France, and the national team are one of the world's best. -- peacock wording, is this sentence necessary
• France are the host nation of the upcoming 2007 Rugby World Cup. -- are --> is or will be, link 2007 Rugby World Cup

Also think maybe the lead needs to be reformatted the information jumps around, especially the World cup info which is disjointed and appears to be tacked in

In the History section;

• France became the first nation from the northern hemisphere to tour South Africa - rocking the Springboks to win the Test series. The Springboks also visited Paris, though the Test was not completed due to fighting. France also toured New Zealand and Australia - losing both Tests against the All Blacks but defeating Australia's Wallabies. They won their first Five Nations Grand Slam in 1968 by beating all four other competing teams, and won numerous titles in the following years -- question when was the SA tour? when did SA tour France, who was fighting was it the players during the test, the spectators or someting else? when did the NZ and Aus tours occur did they conincide with the SA tour?
• fielding an unchanged side throughout the tournament surely they changed their clothes during the tournament ;P presume they played with an unaltered team lineup throughout the torunament.

section Strip;

• heading Strip vs Uniform
• there were only two rings because only two continents, America and Europe, participated in the first few Olympics -- every Australian that reads this is going to scream as Australia has competed in every Olympics the article 1896 Summer Olympics also indicates Chile competed. 1900 Summer Olympics also had teams from Asia. I think this sentences needs to be clarified or removed

section Notable Players

• Among these notable players, several stand out due to their influence on French rugby. Ten players are selected in the following table, on the basis of the awards they have received and/or their number of caps. this list while I dont doubt they are notable without a source for the choices its appears to be original research.

Overall its it appears to be comprehensive, maybe a couple of images could be added to the sections after Record to fill some the white spacing caused by the lists and tables. There are enough concerns here for me to oppose its promotion at this time Gnangarra 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just comment to say that I am going through the process of addressing your concerns. - Shudda ^talk 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment - I suspect the "unchanged team" this is a US/rest of world language difference - "unaltered team" seems horribly stilted, and "unchanged team" far more natural for a team that had no changes in it. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think if someone thinks that "unchanged team" means they have not changed their clothes then there is something wrong! - Shudda ^talk 05:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I have addressed most of your concerns. A few things:

• I don't think that the we should removed the statement that rugby is popular and France have a good team - no one with any knowledge of international rugby would dispute that. I reworded it so it doesn't sound so peacocky - but it's quite a sensible and non-controversial thing to say about the team.
• Hopefully the World Cup sentence is clear.
• I've added dates to the history section where you asked, and the info on fighting was expanded yesterday.
• Strip vs Uniform - I think it should stay as it is. This article is written in British English, and Strip is the common term. We could use Uniform, Strip, Jersey, Guernsey. I think maybe wiki-linking strip in the first sentence of that section will do?
• Removed the Olympics thing. You make a very good point, and that was prob taken from the French language page (the ref is in French).
• As for notable players. I'll try and think of another way of doing it. That list was taken directly from the French article. In the All Blacks article we simply had International Rugby Hall of Fame members in the notable players section. Maybe that is best here, please let me know.

Hopefully I've addressed everything (except the notable players thing). Please let me know if there is more I need to do. - Shudda ^talk 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• comment the alterations are fine, I copy edited the history section to adress my concern on peacock terms, with the list of 10 it just needs to be attributed to someone, hall of fame would be ideal, but a magazine/newspaper article would suffice. Gnangarra 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should just do what has been done with the All Blacks - hall of fame members. I'll do that in the next few hours. Is that the only thing left you want changed? - Shudda ^talk 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• <--- I now Support this articles promotion, Gnangarra 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fix needed. This article has a strange and non-standard usage of emdashes combined with non-breaking hard spaces. Spaced emdashes are generally avoided on Wiki (see WP:DASH and WP:MOS). I started to fix them myself, and then realized that emdashes don't seem to be the correct punctuation in several of the instances where they are used. Needs attention.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the non-breaking space before the mdash. Emdashes should be ok according to WP:DASH as in all instances I don't want to use a comma (which causes a run-on sentence) but don't want to start a new sentence either. The style used is now consistent though. - Shudda ^talk 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been away on a short break and missed all of this activity. Will catch up soon.GordyB 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out those point that seem to have been dealt with.GordyB 10:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed 'Support: I've just started looking and the prose needs some work:

The first 3 sentences of the lead are repetitive -count how many times "France" and "rugby union" appear. I'd totally rewrite the first paragraph. sorry. France came of age during the 1950s and 1960s,.. - sounds informal and vague - try using "success/dominance" or some other words.

• I am not sure how to reword this. They weren't dominant, and they were successful (but thats vague as well). What's trying to be said is that they were now consistently competitive. Previously they had been competitive, but not as consistently. Whats the best way to word this?

France then played irregularly.. - "sporadically"? intermittently?

• Don't know whats best. When they joined the Five Nations it became a annual thing, previously it was not.

France was ejected from the Five Nations in 1932, this was mainly due to accusations of professionalism - ungainly try "France was ejected from the Five Nations in 1932 after being accused of professionalism.."

(Having been expelled from the Five Nations and) forced to play - bracketed bit is superfluous
France would not rejoin the Five Nations until 1939 when they were invited back. - why not "France were invited to rejoin the Five Nations in 1939 but did not compete until 1947 due to...."

The 1970s were also successful (for France), and.. redundant - maybe better to rephrase bit.

lost 29 points to 9. - why not just "29-9"?

The French team traditionally played in blue shirts, whites shorts - typo

Um, why does the coach list start in 1964?

Anyway, not too bad. I was wondering whether there should be more on notable players. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The notable players section is as per All Blacks; having too much info on them other then a sentence or two is prob unnecessary as each has their own article.
• I'll deal with your comments soon, but a couple of things - the coach list starts in 1964 because as it says in the first paragraph teams didn't always have coaches, and the role itself varied so much (for example often the captain did the coaching, often senior plays, sometimes selectors or managers etc etc). This is because until 1995 Rugby was a strictly amateur sport, and for a very long time the idea of a coach was frowned upon (especially in the northern hemisphere).
• I think the first paragraph looks fine, rugby union is only mentioned three times, twice in the first sentence, and once after that. Surely this is not a big deal, the article's title is "France national rugby union team"!

Anyway will deal with them all soon. - Shudda ^talk 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed everything - either struck whats been done or added a comment. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I just removed the 2nd sentence as it ads nothing. Their status as the 3rd ranked team in the world is mentioned a little further on and 'popular sport' is vague and obvious as you read the article. 'irregularly' here sounds like irreglaur fashion rather than time, hence the other two words which apply to time intervals. One each adds variety. All your other points are good and I wasn't aware of tehm. Anyway, it gets a gong now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have addressed all the concerns that have been raised so far. Could people please let me know if more is necessary and if they are happy with my changes. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but, please attend to the following:
  • MOS says you must use en dashes for sports scores: 2–0, not 2-0. Consider an en dash for "1910 to 1954" --> "1910–54".
  • "joint top try scorer in 1991 with 6 tries"—apart from being a single-digit number, "six" would avoid the tension with the preceding numerals. Tony 05:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to Raul that I have contacted Grutness a couple of times on his talk page. Although he didn't oppose he did have a few comments and I think they have all been addressed but he has not confirmed whether he agrees or not. - Shudda ^talk 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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.