Talk:Leinster Rugby/GA1

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

Reviewer: HitmanStanners (talk · contribs) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I would suggest a wider variety of sources, not just the same websites (eg ercrugby, leinsterrugby, bbc sport etc...)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Like I said, a wider variety of sources may be beneficial - also make sure the are reliably cited and detailed (with ate accessed, name, source etc). While I am not sure the article is yet ready for GA status, for me it is very close and I am asking for second opinion (also because it is my first review). Other reviews opinions extremely welcome. HitmanStanners (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as long as the sources are reputable they are fine. Now on the other hand refs 33, 38, and 53 are dead links. Ref #5 isn't going to the right place and #45 doesn't even connect. That was just the references another reviewer will take a look at everything else. Ob tund Talk 03:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Like I said, a wider variety of sources may be beneficial - also make sure the are reliably cited and detailed (with ate accessed, name, source etc). While I am not sure the article is yet ready for GA status, for me it is very close and I am asking for second opinion (also because it is my first review). Other reviews opinions extremely welcome. HitmanStanners (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as long as the sources are reputable they are fine. Now on the other hand refs 33, 38, and 53 are dead links. Ref #5 isn't going to the right place and #45 doesn't even connect. That was just the references another reviewer will take a look at everything else. Ob tund Talk 03:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as long as the sources are reputable they are fine. Now on the other hand refs 33, 38, and 53 are dead links. Ref #5 isn't going to the right place and #45 doesn't even connect. That was just the references another reviewer will take a look at everything else. Ob tund Talk 03:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

First reviewer asked for a second opinion, so I'll review the article. In light of the above and unformatted references, I'm failing this article, as it suffers from recentism and numerous referencing issues. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead is supposed to summarise the article, see WP:LEAD. So sentences such as "On 19 May 2012 Leinster won a record third Heineken Cup in four years with a 42-14 win over Ulster Rugby in the first final to feature two teams from Ireland.[3] Leinster are currently ranked 1st in the European Rugby Club Rankings." should not be included, as it is not summarise sections of the article.
 * Not happy at all with the referencing in the history, hardly any inline citations, some paragraphs have none at all, which is worrying. Claims such as "Before the days of professional rugby union, there was further emphasis on Irish club rugby as opposed to the provincial game." and "Much has changed in rugby over the years, but the original idea of Leinster Club Rugby acting as a feeder for the Leinster Interprovincial side, though now professional, still stands true." need citing
 * History section suffers massively from recentism, last 4-5 years takes up the majority of the section