Talk:Thomas Ellison

Importance

I've marked this high importance because of Thomas Ellison's contribution to New Zealand and international rugby. Comparing this to most players means he must surely be of more importance to the subject. - Shudde ^talk 11:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

Should be be so certain about stating Ellison's birthday to the day? The All Blacks ref is, but the NZHistory site simply says "probably in 1867" and the DoNZbio says "sometime between 1866 and 1868". Both are reliable sources, both are much more comprehensive biographies, and the latter also cites further reliable sources of its own. Perhaps we should either just say "c. 1967", which is what WP:MOS says for uncertain birth years? 87.114.147.43 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Ellison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 02:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering Aircorn. I'll try and address any comments post promptly. Appreciate you taking the time to review the article. - Shudde ^talk 10:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay as is my usual style I will make comments as I read the article that may or may not be required as part of the GA criteria. I welcome disagreement and am willing to compromise on most of these. I will then fill in the table with what I think is required to pass as a Good article. I am much less willing to compromise on this, but still welcome discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The claim at the end of the Wing Forward section that the IRFB outlawed the 2-3-2 formation in 1932 is indeed what the histories say, but a check on the law books of the time does not bear this out. Before 1931 there was no specified number of players in the front row. In 1931 a change said “no more than three”. The RFU minute books make it clear this wording was chosen to allow the New Zealand formation. When New Zealand abandoned the system, the RFU proposed (1933) that the law should require exactly 3 players, but the IRB demurred, and the change was not made until 1950.

This article is not the place for the full details, but I suggest it should simply say that New Zealand formally dropped the 2-3-2 in 1933.SilleBbew (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I read the body before the intro as I think they should stand apart and it helps to know what should be in the intro before I review it. For this reason starting with just his last name was a bit jarring, especially as you mention his middle name a few sentences later. Would you be willing to provide the full name, middle and all at the start of this sentence.
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Should we link to and mention Maori earlier in the early life as I am sure most international viewers will be confused with just the tribe names.
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• in his final two years he won the Hawke's Bay senior club championship with the school team. Probably a little too pedantic, but I don't really like the singular used to describe a team sport win. This is not too bad as it says with the school team at the end, but would "in his final two years he was part of the school team when it won the Hawke's Bay senior club championship" work?
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• I feel there should be a short sentence about the introduction of rugby to New Zealand somewhere. It was obviously quite new at the time. A link to Rugby union in New Zealand would be nice. I don't suppose you know how he was introduced to the sport?
  • I haven't added anything yet. However the only source I can find is here that says he was introduced to it by his cousins—without explicitly saying this was the Taiaroa brothers. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The Native Football team consisted and The final team consisted I don't suppose you could vary this a bit.
  • OK. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The final team consisted of 26 players, and toured New Zealand before departing to Melbourne, and then touring Great Britain, Australia, and finally New Zealand again Got a bit lost with all the "ands"
  • Right. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Ellison played as a forward throughout the tour, and of the 107 matches, Ellison played at least 83; including a minimum of 58 in Britain. Something not quite right with this sentence either. I think it is the inclusion of the two commas and the semi-colon. Had to read it a few times to get the meaning. Maybe you could look to reword it slightly.
  • Tried something.-Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Not only did Ellison participate in most of the Natives' matches, but he scored 113 points, and 43 tries on tour; including 23 tries in Britain and Ireland, 4 in New South Wales, 5 in Queensland, and 10 in New Zealand. Also had trouble with this sentence for similar reasons. It is probably just your writing style, but the extra commas can look like parenthetical commas and confuse the sentence structure for me.
  • This is basically a list, don't know how best to turn it into prose without the use of those commas. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "I shall never forget the trip, notwithstanding the extremely heavy programme of fixtures we had to go through. Perhaps the most delightful part of our experiences was tasted not so much on the field of play as off it".This is a bit teaserish. There are no mentions of off the field antics before this so it seems a little out of place.
  • Easily the best source for this is Forerunners of the All Blacks - however I haven't found any anecdotes that explicitly mention Ellison. I think this quote is pretty valuable, even though I can't elaborate further. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I found this[1] which like you say doesn't specifically mention Ellison of the field. I suppose a general note could be attached describing the off field environment for the team, but as I can't find anything substantial about Ellison I am happy with the status quo. AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah. There are descriptions of various notable off-field events in Ryan's book. However as Ellison is not mentioned in any of them (that I have found), I'm not confident that he was involved in any of them. - Shudde ^talk 11:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• while Ryan claims the position was developed in northern England who is Ryan?
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Should there be a mention of Wing Forward evolving into the flanker position?
  • I don't think this is true. Wing-forward is probably something between a half-back and flanker. However the modern flanker didn't really evolve until after the Second World War, and most likely in South Africa. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Our article on Rugby union positions might need a clarification then. I looked at the source and it is really interesting,[2] but doesn't say the flankers evolved from wing forwards so you are probably right. AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The best description of the wing-forward position I have found is in Matt Elliot's book about Dave Gallaher. It is really interesting, and he spends an entire chapter focusing on the position because anyone alive today has no familiarity with it. I think the comparison between wing-forward and flanker is made mainly because there it is the easiest thing to compare it to—rather than because the modern flanker evolved from the wing-forward position. - Shudde ^talk
• The all black uniform would become famous as that of New Zealand representative sides, and eventually give them their name—All Blacks. We both know this, but with the use of the word famous I think it needs a reference or someone else could challenge it.
  • Really? What I imagine may be challenged is that the name derives from the uniform (the old myth about the journalist's typo turning "All Backs" into "All Blacks" is still around.) I'll try and find a reference for this, but I don't think the name itself being famous can be credibly challenged. - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I always try to look at this as what someone unfamiliar would think. If something is described as famous without a reference I automatically think WP:PEACOCK. This is probably alright in this case and why the reference currently used doesn't actually say famous it is enough to show the importance of the jersey. If it gets challenged it shouldn't be hard to find a reference anyway.AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I think the reference I added is suitable, and should satisfy any complaints. - Shudde ^talk 11:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• After finishing his career, Ellison's playing record totalled 117 matches; 68 of which were first-class games We haven't defined what a first-class game and why it is different from the other games is so this may be a bit confusing for some. Maybe a note.
  • Can't find a RS for the definition of a first-class match in New Zealand. I can add a note, but it won't be referenced.
    • Happy for an unreferenced note. I am just thinking it seems strange to differentiate first class games with no explanation for the layman. AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The New Zealand Native Football team was inducted into the International Rugby Board Hall of Fame in 2008; the first side awarded the honour. Probably need a cite for being the first side awarded the honour.
  • Can this be credibly challenged? - Shudde ^talk 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe being the first could be. It should be easy to reference though and I don't really want these to be tagged after being passed if I can help it. However if you can't find a reference or are happy to leave it unreferenced it would not be a deal breaker. AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I added something. There are other references. However it is not a hard thing to verify. I don't think it is a controversial statement. - Shudde ^talk 11:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay just need to check a few more references and some other loose ends (pictures stability etc) and this will be good to go. AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: