Talk:1888–89 New Zealand Native football team

1888–89 New Zealand Native football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 24, 2014, August 24, 2017, August 24, 2020, August 24, 2022, and August 24, 2024.

New Zealand: Māori Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance).

Rugby union High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I did not think this was in fact actually classed as the start of the NZ Maori Team as stated in this page. The NZRU are celebrating 100 years of Maori rugby this year (2010). If the NZ Natives Team was the start then it would have been celebrated in 1988-89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukiwi78 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record against England

There's a problem at England_national_rugby_union_team#Overall that could use your help. There appears to be a slow-motion edit war of the 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team link. Part of the issue may be an attempt to link to 1888–1889 New Zealand Maori football team. In any case, the current changes aren't working. This is in the table in the Overall section. wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1888–89 New Zealand Native football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 12:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call dibs on this interesting historical sporting article. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A very interesting subject. I will enjoy learning more.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Looks very well-written on the whole. I have copy-edited a little in a few places. I think "comprised" should be preferred to "consisted of" where possible. There are a few places where there are endashes where there should be commas or nothing at all ("Biggs – aged 18 years and 49 days – became the youngest Welsh player – a record he held until the debut of Tom Prydie in 2010". The first two dashes should be commas, the third is fine. I would change to "the youngest Welsh rugby international")I have fixed some earlier in the article myself, but the rest are still there. "Superstar player" should probably become "star player". It is confusing in the Australia section which matches are in which sports; work on making this clearer. In the Impact and Legacy section, was it the Maori All Blacks or the New Zealand Natives that were inducted into the IRB Hall of Fame?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Generally good, but just a few things. You should wikilink Warbrick in the body as well as the lead (also Māori, Pakeha). Captions should only have full stops if they are full sentences (the caption accompanying picture at the top, for example, should not have a full stop, but the picture of Warbrick, which presently doesn't have one, should). I think the lead should be a bit longer, with another paragraph the same as the one we have now.I personally prefer emdashes to spaced endashes, but that's just me. Wikilink Lansdowne Road. Wikilink Lancashire and Yorkshire rugby teams when you first mention them. 'palpably nervous' should have quotation marks ("). See also section is not necessary and should be removed.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
~~"After defeating Midland Counties, the Natives returned to London." is not sourced inline. Footnotes need citations. Otherwise looks good.~~

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Overall a good presentation of the subject.

B. Focused:
Maybe give a few words in the first sentence of the background section saying who Warbrick was (perhaps "was conceived by Joseph Warbrick, a rugby union player of Māori descent who had played for New Zealand in 1884"). Perhaps give a few words on who Eyton and Scott were when you first introduce each of them in the background section. Was Warbrick only part-Māori? "Joseph Astbury Warbrick" sounds incredibly British and in that picture he does not look un-European. Likewise regarding the other players; in the group photo most of them look white and have similarly British-looking names. Do the sources record how many were part-Māori and how many full? What is the "four three-quarter system" and why didn't Gould like it?
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
I see no issues of this sort.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I do not see any problems with picture licensing.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Very nice pictures that complement the article well.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Getting there; not quite up to GA yet I think, but not far away. I hope the comments above are helpful and look forward to seeing the article progress. I'll keep an eye on this and if you need a hand or further explanation, please let me know. I enjoyed reading this interesting bit of sporting and colonial history. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've been pretty busy this week, but will have everything sorted within the next couple of days I hope. I'll just leave comments below on things I've addressed, and any questions/comments from me regarding the review.

I'm not going to bother finding a citation for note c -- this would seem to be a case of WP:BLUE

I should have said you didn't need to do that one; an oversight on my part. This isn't actually that kind of case as the note is saying that this article is including Ireland in the British isles category, not that it is in the British isles. In any case I think common sense says leave it as it is.

Yeah the sources refer to the British Isles, and at the time Ireland was part of Great Britain, but I'm usually really careful here (which is why I added the note) because some people are very sensitive about using the term Britain to describe Ireland at all. – Shudde ^talk 04:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've fixed the image captions, I manage to never get it right, so a double check from you would be appreciated!

Looks okay now. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "Welsh superstar player" to "star Welsh player" -- I think this reads better

Okay —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations should be fixed except to footnote b (which I'll get to later)

Okay —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed one example of ndashes to commas, however I'm a little confused on this front: WP:DASH does say that "Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas);" -- are the examples you're thinking of where this doesn't work or is confusing? I do use ndashes rather than commas or brackets sometimes – this is just my writing style more than anything, but if it's bad to do this, I do want to know!

There is nothing with endashes in themselves, but you shouldn't have more than one in a sentence as this can confuse the reader (unless they are parenthetical dashes, in which case there should not be more than two). Using too many of them is, in my experience, a little jarring and distracting. You should try to avoid using them instead of commas. They are, however, good as an occasional substitute for semicolons or colons. I hope this helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I thought you meant. Cheers for the clarification. - Shudde ^talk 04:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to make a few minor changes to some of your copy-editing, esp in the Australia section (for example you changed Melbourne to Australia at one point!). Maybe check this again to ensure you're happy with it.

I will keep doing so during the review. It generally looks okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get onto the other things promptly, and will do the lead last. Again - thanks for the review! – Shudde ^talk 06:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the prompt and constructive replies. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok almost done. Still have to expand the lead, but apart from that think I've addressed everything. A couple of comments:

I'm not sure why Arthur Gould didn't like the four three-quarter system. There is a little on this in the Gould article, however I'll ask FruitMonkey (talk · contribs) if they'll add a sentence on this here.
- I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I hope the addition makes sense. It appears that Gould's ability (or belief in his own ability) was such that his club felt that the extra back was unwarranted, and preferred the advantage of an additional forward player. I suppose how Australia felt playing against Halfpenny on the recent Lions tour. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added something on the parentage of the Maori members of the Native side. It's not clear in all cases - regarding such an "English" name for a Maori, I don't think it was uncommon for Maori to adopt a British name at this time.
Should have added all the necessary wiki-links. Let me know if I missed any obvious ones.

Like I said, I'll expand the lead in a few hours. Let me know if there are any other remaining issues. Cheers. - Shudde ^talk 06:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead. Hopefully this means everything has been addressed. -- Shudde ^talk 10:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've made a few more tweaks I hope you are both okay with. I have tried to make clear in the first paragraph what exactly makes this team so important historically (first NZ team to do haka, first to wear all black, etc). Just one more thing—we say that these were the first NZ team to wear all black, but the 1884 NZ team in Australia also seems to be doing so here. Apart from this question mark I think this is just about there now; I'll pass after this last issue is resolved. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That 1884 team wore blue (I'm not sure how dark) -- it may look black in the photo, but definitely wasn't. -- Shudde ^talk 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's great—passing now for GA. I think this might do well at FAC if you wish to take it there. If you do, I would add a sentence, or even half a sentence, to the end of the lead to tell the reader that the NZ rugby team ultimately adopted the haka and the all black kit just like the Natives, and indeed became called the All Blacks; maybe put something along those lines in the lead picture's caption too. If you take it to FAC please do let me know and I will try to help out there as well. Anyway, the article is looking very good now—well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the review. The copy-editing was great as well. I think the article needs a bit of a polish and probably an expansion in some areas before it's ready for FAC. I may get around to that eventually. Thanks for the offer, I'll definitely ping you if I ever decide to nominate it. - Shudde ^talk 09:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223212347/http://www.irb.com/history/halloffame/newsid%3D2027752.html to http://www.irb.com/history/halloffame/newsid%3D2027752.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2e7/ellison-thomas-rangiwahia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I have removed the infobox that was added to this article. I have a number of problems with it that I will list:

It made the image of the team much smaller than otherwise, and therefore much less useful (it was barely visible)
It contained a number of errors -- for one the match information was wrong, win loss draw values are wrong
Did they even play "test" matches? Not really. None of the natives were awarded test caps and these are not recognised by New Zealand Rugby as test matches. To list them as such is incorrect.
Next tour is also wrong, this team is not Māori All Blacks despite the mistaken belief among some that they are, therefore there was no "next tour".

I have removed the infobox as redundant, if someone wants to add one, or discuss how a more appropriate one could be added, I'd be happy to discuss it here. -- Shudde^talk 18:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]