GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

OK, I will begin now and likely make some straightforward copyediting changes as I go. Please feel free to revert any that inadvertently change the meaning. Let's see how those foxy foxes are....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the interjection... WP:FOOTY consensus is that "Famous supporters" sections are not encyclopedic and should not be included in team articles. The information could be added to the individual biography articles of the celebrities concerned, if it is deemed significant. --Jameboy (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Have also asked a chum to take a look. We'll help get this one over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JRA_WestyQld2's comments

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

It was a hard decision whether to put this on hold or fail it right now due to a high backlog on good article nominees, but because there is quite a bit of work put into this page, I think if editors show some initiative on this page, it should get a second shot sooner, rather than later. I could not find problems with grammar, spelling or any major MoS mistakes, so if someone wants to clean it up, I'll decide what to do with it. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 07:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Maybe history can be broken up into sections
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Biggest problem for this article, it lacks a lot of citation for facts. For reference number 3, if it is used multiple times, provide page different references for different page numbers.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very broad. I tend to disagree Casilber about more content for a good article, trivial sort of things like that could be used for feature articles.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I'm a bit nit picky on this one, it isn't too bad.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions could be better by being more in depth and putting the images into context. Read WP:CAP.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article will be put on hold for a week, in this time there needs to be significant improvements to citations and referencing.

Thank you for your patience! Looks good =] JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 08:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article problems

[edit]
FixedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FixedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FixedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed?Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? See below
Fixed? See aboveCptnono (talk)
Half fixedCptnono (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RemovedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
RemovedCptnono (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article summary

[edit]

Lead

History

Colours

  • I found a great resource for historical kits that looks to be properly vetted. Made a mention of it at the footy project. Forced to remove a few lines regarding when and how often the blue and white was used. Removed Admiral logo since I could not find it. Inde Coope is shown on this page and I have found a fanzine. I was hoping to find something better for the "first logo" line. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added source for last few lines regarding newest kit.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

Club honors

Managers

Records and statistics

League history

Players

Backroom staff

References

Fixed layout (but not citaiton style)Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]