Talk:Brisbane Broncos/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
 * GA review (see here for criteria):


 * The lead has instances of bad link formatting: ref one is just a naked URL, and there's a direct external link in the text at the end.
 * The sections are all messed up. Unfortunately there's no template for rugby league team articles, but see WikiProject Football/Clubs, that should apply perfectly well.
 * "State of Origin": this is never explained, only wikilinked.
 * "Club legend Allan Langer retired mid-season, perhaps as a result of the team's form.": no ref, WP:OR
 * "Notable players": the picture here is not appropriately labelled, who are the players?
 * "Supporters": this section contains one sentence of prose: "The Brisbane broncos have the largest fan base of any rugby league club in Australia." There is no ref, which there should be. Further, it's only a list of notable supporters, which is peripheral information. There is nothing on such subjects as traditions, chants, socio-economic and geographic origin etc.
 * Solved.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Corporate": this section is tagged for expansion.
 * There are 6 dead links (see ). Lampman (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that some effort has been made to improve the article, though issues still remain, particularly with structuring and sourcing. I will give the article one more week, and then check back. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Lampman (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Though some changes have been made, the main concerns of this review – to do with structuring and sourcing primarily – have not been addressed. I will therefore delist this article now; if adequate measures are taken in the future, please contact me and I'd be happy to give the article another look. Lampman (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)