Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Shudde talk 09:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This least list has previously been a Featured List (see discussion here), but lost it after review (see here). The list details the playing matches of the 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team that played mainly rugby union. The tour was the longest in rugby history, and must be one of the longest in sporting history. Playing up to three games a week of a physically brutal sport. I think the list has been improved significantly, and meets the criteria. Shudde talk 09:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"and their first matche a 5–0 victory over Hawke's Bay." "matche" → "match"?Victorian Rules in Australia: The For and Against columns need sort templates as the numbers aren't sorting properly.Note 16 should have the page range be given as pp. instead of p.Hyphen in the second general reference should be an en dash instead per the Manual of Style.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Done; thanks for the comments - Shudde talk 11:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose quick flick over the lead...
If these are sorted out, I'll take a more detailed look at the lead, then the main list. In all honesty, this list is borderline quick fail I'm afraid, I'd send to to peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments getting there...
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Shudde, this nomination looks like it's stalled, have you sent a message out to the regulars at the rugby and Aussie rules projects? Even some football editors (e.g. PeeJay2k3) may be interested in reviewing this? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted messages letting both the rugby union and New Zealand projects know about the nomination back in April. I haven't asked for comments from any editors directly, especially as I didn't want to be seen as canvassing. If you're happy for me to contact a couple of NZ or RU editors that have experience commenting on Good or Featured content then I will, but I'm not comfortable doing that unless you're happy with it. - Shudde talk 08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone posted something at the WP:RU talk page, just saying that the nom. has stalled and extra eyes would be appreciated. Hopefully this gets a response. - Shudde talk 12:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've slightly changed the alt statements on the image to reflect what can be seen, rather than the subject matter. But the article looks good to me. The rugby union teams named appear to be correct and the British Isles dates and results reflect what I know of this tour. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Not really important to FL status, but I noticed <includeonly>__NOTOC__</includeonly> in the source code. Is this serving a purpose? Adabow (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]- File:1888-1889 Natives Tour.jpg should have a US copyright status tag
- "For the rugby matches in the British Isles, New Zealand, and Victoria tries scored one point..." - a bit WP:SEAOFBLUE and hard to distinguish that 'Victoria' and 'tries' are separate links
- For the sake of clarity, I would suggest separating explanatory notes (eg "Includes Ireland") and citations into separate sections, or at least into separate lists.
Can the source for the British Isles table be shortened and linked to the main reference (ie shortened to Ryan 1993, p. 143.)?
Adabow (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have dealt with those comments. US copyright tag done, split notes and references. Let me know if it all looks good. - Shudde talk 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Meets criteria. Adabow (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm happy now my various niff-naff questions have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.