Talk:Parramatta Eels/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 article is well written, with a fair amount of references, but there's a big issue with structuring. The history section is cursory up until 1998, after which each season is treated separately with box scores. This gives the article a heavy presentist slant. The box scores should not interrupt the text; much better would be a separate article with season-by-season statistics, going all the way back to the beginning. As for the prose, it covers the results but says vary little about important players, transfers and other things. Worst of all, this part is virtually unreferenced.

Also, the second paragraph of "2007" is virtually unreadable, but I assume this has been added later. The same is probably the case with the last line of "Emblem", which should be incorporated into the rest of the text and sourced. The lower part of the article - below the history section - generally looks quite good. There were a few dead links, but I think I managed to track down replacements. The above issues will have to be addressed, however, for the article to remain a GA. Lampman (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since no changes have been made to address the concerns raised in the review, I am now delisting the article. Lampman (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)