The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

England national rugby union team[edit]

Notified: User talk:Shudde, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England July 2021 notice

See this discussion; additional notifications to Rugby.change, BRACK66, Cvene64, Rodney Baggins SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced parts and more weight on recent events than the past, and repeats material in the history and then describes it in prose in the results section Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Coords, please extend FAR by one week, as notifications were incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumbubookworm:

"it has unsourced parts": mostly very well sourced, the main gaps appear to be in the Record section and a few other parts that should be ((cn)) tagged pending some urgent attention.

"more weight on recent events than the past": the "Early years" and "Professional era" subsections in History are pretty much of equal weight. Where else do you think there's too much weight on recent events? The Rugby World Cup only started in 1987, rankings only introduced in 2003, so these are naturally recent developments and described as such.

"repeats material in the history and then describes it in prose in the results section": when you say "results section", do you mean "Record" section? The "Rugby World Cup" subsection just focuses in on that tournament and may contain some slight repetition from the History as a result but I don't think that's a problem (lack of sourcing in that subsection is a bigger problem!) "Overall" subsection talks about the rankings and I don't think any of that is repeated stuff.

I certainly don't think the article deserves to be demoted without the chance for a thorough review which I would be happy to be involved in. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins templates are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they cause template limits to be exceeded, which chops the entire page. Would you mind replacing your tq templates above with straight quotes? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC, issues have not been addressed, uncited text abounds, and the diff of changes since the FAR nom indicate a tendency to WP:PROSELINE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to FARC - uncited text in the history, record, and uniforms sections have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist does not meet FA citation requirement (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist edits have been made during FARC, but not to address the issues. There is still considerable uncited text, plus organization problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - significant work needed, not much happening. Hog Farm _Talk 07:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.