Talk:Springbok colours/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Miyagawa in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Grabbing this one for a review later. Miyagawa (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Quick query while I'm thinking about it (full review to come later) - does South Africa follow British English or American English? I just wonder due to the spelling of "colours". Miyagawa (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well they sort of blend the two, see South African English. The fact that during apartheid, one of the official race groups was Coloureds confirms that they do use the British version for that at least. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, happy to keep it as it is. I just honestly didn't know which one they used! (on reflection, I should have Googled it) Miyagawa (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well they sort of blend the two, see South African English. The fact that during apartheid, one of the official race groups was Coloureds confirms that they do use the British version for that at least. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, let's get this started. Image licence is fine. There are a couple on Commons you could use as well if you wanted to slot one of them into the article (although I wouldn't go as far as creating a gallery section, I think those should be used rarely). File:1937 span 011.jpg, File:Keith Oxlee arriving at Gisborn, New Zealand, on South Africa's 1965 tour to Australasia..png. I'd probably opt for the team photo in the history section if you were to add one of them - I completly agree that you should keep the existing one as the lead image since it's the only one in colour and immensly helps the understanding of the article.
- Yes, though I would like a better one because you can't really see the Springbok on it but it is the best one around as all good images of someone wearing the colours are either copyrighted or have an inappropriate licence, The SA government's flickr for example have good ones but they're copyrighted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lead: I'd shoehorn in a mention that they were first introduced in 1906 - although you can leave the specific details for the article body. It'll just give more context to what period you mean in the line with "historically awarded".
- Normally you don't need to cite the lead, but you're right to cite that since it could be considered to be contrary to some people's views. Not that I would agree with those people.
- History:The line "Later on they became standard issue for all sportsmen representing South Africa internationally but primarily was used by rugby union as the creators." needs a citation.
- Second paragraph, first sentence - link through to Rugby league in South Africa (in fact, you won't even have to pipe it!)
- After you say "South African Rugby Board" for the first time, put "(SARB)" afterwards. Just to make it 100% clear when using the abbreviation afterwards.
- "The Springbok colours as a result of only awarded to white sportspeople, as non-whites were not eligible to be selected for South African national sports teams, came to be viewed as a symbol of white supremacy in apartheid South Africa." This needs a re-write as I think you've got the arguments flipped around and so it doesn't flow very well. Something along the lines of "As non-whites were not eligible to be selected for South African national sports teams, the Springbok colours came to be viewed as a symbol of white supremacy in apartheid South Africa because they were only awarded to white sportspeople."
- No issues with the Post apartheid section.
- Other thoughts: If you wanted to include an infobox, I'd recommend Template:Infobox clothing type
- One issue just jumped out at me - you've described the history of the colours well... but you haven't actually said anywhere what they are in the article body. In the lead you say that they are "green and gold blazers" but is there anything more than can be said in the article body under a "Description" section? Does the gold trim around the collar have to be a certain width etc. If there isn't enough for a four or five sentence section, then I'd simply add a line at the start of history repeating that the colours are a green and gold blazer.
That should be everything. An interesting read on a subject that I didn't realise had quite so much history to it. Placing GAN on hold for the standard seven days. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough for a description section however I have included how it was originally made and why. With regard to the infobox, I couldn't put the lead image in as it made it ridiculously huge which broke up the page quite a bit so i'm going to have to put it under until we can get a better image. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I wonder if the potential compromise might be to move the black and white team photo into the infobox and then move the colour photo in-line in the history section. Wouldn't be my first choice, but it'd resolve the formatting since the width of the team shot would prevent it from becoming too big in the infobox. But, I'm happy to promote in the meanwhile. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough for a description section however I have included how it was originally made and why. With regard to the infobox, I couldn't put the lead image in as it made it ridiculously huge which broke up the page quite a bit so i'm going to have to put it under until we can get a better image. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)