Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusaders (rugby)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Crusaders (rugby)[edit]

Self-nomination. This article has been progressively re-written over the last year. Achieved GA status some time ago and has undergone a peer review. The article is about a New Zealand Rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. Believe it is well referenced, NPOV, comprehensive and well-written. Thanks. - Shudda talk 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggest the opening paragraph drop the peacock words that have drawn the cite need tag maybe to something like
The Crusaders (formerly the Canterbury Crusaders) are a New Zealand rugby union team based in Christchurch, New Zealand.They compete in the Super 14, formerly the Super 12 and are the current champions. The franchise represents the Buller, Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, South Canterbury, Tasman, and West Coast provincial rugby unions with their home ground being Jade Stadium.
Besides this citation issue, a small copy edit that I've already done I didnt notice anything that would prevent me supporting this article (except its not the Western Force), once thats addressed I'll have another read. Gnangarra 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is correct, they are the most successful team in the competitions history. They have won it six times in it's eleven years. As well, they did win the 2006 Super 14. They've also lost two competition finals. I'll add a paragraph to the Super records and achievements section summarising their results. This will be cited. I'll then removed the citation tag in the lead. - Shudda talk 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done that. - Shudda talk 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support just dont tell any one in Perth ok 8) Gnangarra 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comprehensive, reads well and referenced. Nothing POV jumps out at me. choice Cas Liber 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above. This is good work Shudda.----HamedogTalk|@ 05:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Minor oppose for now, due to many minor problems. The article seems fairly well written overall, but is worded a bit too colloquially or clumsily in places. While gameplay is generally described using past tense (as it should be), present tense has occasionally crept in, along with some jargon. (I suspect some readers won't know what it means to say Mehrtens "landed" a penalty, for instance). Essential terms such as try and penalty should be wikilinked on first appearance, and others avoided. The article also needs a thorough copyedit: for example, there's a run-on sentence in the lead section, a few spelling mistakes (e.g. rouded, "then" for "than"), widespread misuse of apostrophes (e.g. games' and games instead of game's, Crusader's main home ground, a Crusaders' victory), and other punctuation problems. This is a well referenced and comprehensive article, and it's a shame that these details detract from it. -- Avenue 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give the article a thorough copyedit during the weekend and try to address your concerns. I hope you can reserve your verdict until then. GringoInChile 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy to review it in a few days and reconsider my opinion then. -- Avenue 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've finished the copyedit. GringoInChile 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I'll review it again. -- Avenue 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found quite a few remaining problems, which I fixed, but I suspect I haven't caught everything. I'll have another look tomorrow. -- Avenue 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article's now looking much tidier. A few other concerns have come to my mind while combing through it, however:
                • Could the Team of the Decade table be considered a copyright violation? We don't really say much about it, which doesn't help our position.
                • There's no mention of the fans, apart from the 1998 parade. Is there anything worth noting about them?
                • Does the article go into too much detail in the history section? I think there's a case for reporting gameplay for a few especially notable games, but perhaps not every final.
-- Avenue 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the team of the decade is a copyright violation. I can't see how it would be. As for the fans, a lot of sports teams' articles have sections on 'supporters'. However I believe these are very prone to being POV. I've read a few books on the Crusaders, and the Super 12, and there is nothing really much said about the fans to warrant an entire section. If you have a more specific suggestion regarding what should be mentioned about fans or supporters then let me know, and I'll see if I can find something on it. I think the detail is fine in the history section. If the section gets much larger (so maybe after a couple more seasons), it could be split off into it's own article and summarised in this one. However I do believe having a nice summary of each of their finals is good, as its the most important match of that particular season. - Shudda talk 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept your view about the fans, and the level of detail in the history section. I'm almost ready to change my vote from Oppose to Support, but I'm still concerned about the team of the decade section. I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misunderstanding the situation, but it seems to me that there's enough originality in selecting such a team for it to be protected by copyright. If so, the same principles apply as for the copyrighted pictures used in the article; unless it has been freely licensed by copyright holder, there needs to be a sensible rationale for being able to claim fair use (although it might not need to written out explicitly). Based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text, I don't think it would currently qualify. -- Avenue 10:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how applicable Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text is because it is talking about quoting something (for example a sentence, or statement written in a newspaper article). However I have not quoted anything, but simply listed the team, and their positions. Unfortunately I'm just not sure whether this is copy-right, or comes under fair use. If someone with more expertise in this could help clarify this I'd really appreciate it. - Shudda talk 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help I'll describe the article. Firstly it introduces that there has been a competition for readers to pick their Crusaders team of the decade. It summarises what the readers voted on, and then lists the team picked by them. It also lists the team picked by the panel of experts (see the main article for who they were), and then the main body of the article is about how the panel decided who they would pick, and detailing their discussions as they made their decision. Then it lists all the votes for every player, and how many each got. There was a competition for a reader to pick the same team as the expert panel (I don't think any did, but the winner was who got the closest). I can't remember what the prize was. So basically what is included in the Crusaders article is only a small portion of the newspaper article about the team of the decade. Hopefully this helps. - Shudda talk 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the description of the Press article. You're right, the fact that their team is only a small part of the article helps establish a fair use defence. It might however be seen as the most important part of the article, which would make it harder to justify. I'll change my vote to just a minor oppose nonetheless.
We are effectively copying/quoting from their article by reproducing their team here. I suggest we make it clearer that this is for the purpose of comment, teaching, or scholarship by actually discussing their team in our article. (Simply saying who created it is not enough, although it's important for other reasons.) One possibility would be identify the most controversial positions, perhaps by highlighting differences between the readers' team with the experts' team, and say something about the players who were missed. For instance, were any of the omissions All Blacks? This would help demonstrate the abundance of talent within the Crusaders, and make more significant use of the team within our article (which would help satisfy our fair use policy). -- Avenue 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that sounds like a good idea. There is only one potential problem and that is one of original research. There is definitely a discussion of the team in the article, but i'm not sure how many other sources for it there will be. I'll get something together, even if it's only a couple of sentences (i know for example that the omission of Reuben Thorne was significant). - Shudda talk 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, have added a paragraph. Have a look at it and let me know what you think. - Shudda talk 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks great. I've changed my vote to support. -- Avenue 10:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did know there would be minor issues like that, but as I wrote 90% of the article its harder for me to spot them then someone else (less attached). So I really appreciate you doing a copy-edit GringoInChile. I did request a copy-edit from the League of Copyeditors, but its been sitting there for about a month now without any movement. - Shudda talk 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a first-pass copy-edit. Fixed a number of things. Want to take a fresh look in a day or so. Unimaginative Username 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fair use image Image:Blackadder1998.jpg adds little to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an image of the captain of the team raising the championship trophy. I could not disagree with you more. It illustrates the articles perfectly. JHMM13 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with JHMM13. This team was created with the sole purpose of winning that same trophy (lately its successor, the Super 14 trophy) and has been the most successful team ever in achieving this objective. This photo strongly encapsulates the very essence of the team. GringoInChile 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the fair use rationale I gave on the images description page; "Is a historically significant photo of a famous individual, Todd Blackadder holding Super 12 Trophy in 1998. Historically significant for several reasons; first Super 12 victory by Crusaders, first Super 12 victory by team other then Blues, first time Super 12 final not won by home team." I think this is a perfect example of where fair use applies. Also, this is the only fair use image in the article, so I wanted it to be a particularly significant image. - Shudda talk 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Let me know if its now acceptable. - Shudda talk 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it's ready now. GringoInChile 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe its well written and also well referenced..why not?..--Cometstyles 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crusaders_(rugby)&oldid=1144179266"