Talk:Melbourne Storm/GA2

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

Reviewer: Resolute 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comments
 * The final paragraph of the lead describes the salary cap issues and being stripped of titles in far too much detail for the lead. Doubly so since it is already summarized in the second paragraph.


 * "Between 2001 and 2002, the Melbourne club performed poorly." (2000s) - Meaningless without context. How did they do poorly? Also, unsourced
 * "Cracks were starting to appear between Johns, Ribot and Anderson throughout the period, with Anderson quitting as coach after round 7, 2001." (2000s) Define "cracks".  What were these three feuding about?  Again, needs a source.
 * The number of quote boxes is excessive, and using them at full width breaks the article flow. Of particular concern is the quote box in the 2000s section that introduces the threat of the team relocating, but is not mentioned elsewhere.  As a reader, I am left completely confused as to why this occurred.  Was attendance poor?  Financial difficulty?  Underfunded owners?  What?  How were these problems resolved?
 * "Between 2003 and 2005, Melbourne consistently made the finals, but lost games in the semi finals" - this is potentially a dialect issue, but it is confusing to me that this team is said to have made the finals, but then lost a semi-final. In this context, I presume that "finals" refers to a playoffs?  Is there a more proper word to describe this so that the competition itself is not confused with what round the team made?
 * "On 17 July 2004, during round 19 of the 2004 NRL season, Danny Williams king-hit Wests Tigers' player Mark O'Neill." - Obviously a "king-hit" is very bad since he got an 18 week suspension, but what is a king-hit? A hit to the head?
 * "The Storm however lost 15–8 the to the Brisbane Broncos, in a match where controversial refereeing decisions against Melbourne caused much media coverage." - What were the decisions and how was the coverage presented?
 * "Melbourne's television audience for the Storm's NRL grand final appearance was greater than Sydney's was for the Swans AFL grand final appearance'." - Comparing apples and oranges. Why is this relevant?
 * "The win was particularly satisfying for Melbourne fans, coming soon after Parramatta CEO Denis Fitzgerald said that rugby league should not be promoted in Melbourne." - Lacking context. Why did Mr. Fitzgerald make such a statement?
 * "Bellamy was fined $50,000 for making scathing remarks regarding the NRL's decision to suspend Cameron Smith over a controversial "grapple tackle" on Brisbane's Sam Thaiday. Bellamy wrongly claimed that the administration was corrupt and that bookkeepers already knew that Smith would be denied the opportunity to play for the rest of the season. Along with Melbourne's CEO, Bellamy questioned the NRL's integrity in their opting to sideline Smith and not others who were guilty of committing similar tackles." - Unsourced. Borderline BLP issue without the sourcing.
 * "At the Dally M Awards for season 2008, Melbourne picked up 6 awards, with 3 to Greg Inglis, and 1 for each..." - numbers below ten should be spelled out in this case
 * "Following the 40–0 defeat, season 2009 was generally an average year on the field by the Storm's lofty standards," Why is the 40-0 defeat relevant? When did it happen? "Average" by what definition?
 * The two statements at the end of the 2000s section (on poor TV rights and annual losses" are floating off on their own, and don't fit well the section.
 * The salary cap breach section is excessive and completely unbalances the article. Given the nature and scope of that scandal, it may be preferable to split that into a child article and summarize the key details on this article.
 * Reference citation format is a mess. Most use cite templates, but many are just bare links and ref 22 has a syntax error.  Please ensure that all citations are in consistent format.
 * Images are good
 * Neutrality is good


 * The article is plagued overall by a significant lack of sourcing in several paragraphs and sections. For that reason, along with concerns listed above, I am failing the article at this time.  It still needs some work to be a GA.  I hope this review helps.  Cheers, Resolute 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)