Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Roosters


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 23:06, 24 May 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified MDM, Sbryce858, WikiProject Australia, and WikiProject Rugby league.

Main problem with this one is a lack of citations, particularly in the Rivalries, Statistics and records, and Coach sections; the latter two are completely uncited. It also needs some prose and style cleaning. Photos need checking as well; the newspaper headline has got to go, and I have doubts about the PD status of the Sydney Sports Ground photo.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The rivalries section on that, and other NRL team articles, will be almost impossible to reference because it's just original "research" of some fan.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the rivalry/derby is large enough to be notable, then it would be noted in the media. For instance, Manchester United's rivalries, or for a rugby league example, the Wigan-St Helens derby.    The term "derby", even "rival" in one case, is consistently used. GW (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alot of this will be referenceable. Will see what I can dig up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For the moment and to aid preservation of FA status I have moved the 3 x lists of record crowd attendance to List of Sydney Roosters records. Notwithstanding my own view that a list of crowd #s is tedious, let's move it back if it can have adequate citations. Statistics and Records section now looks as it did on day article was promoted. - Sticks 66 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The uncited references to rivalries that read like OR have been moved to the end of Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs rivalry. Yes if it can be referenced lets bring it back. The rivalry with StGeorge is very unconvincing and if it did start in 2001 then it is hardly a "traditional rivalry". This section now looks as it did at promotion- Sticks 66 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd still prefer it what it was the day it was promoted than removing the other unreferenced rivalries, as this is still currently no good, in my opinion.  The Windler    talk  02:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Joel, if you mean getting rid of that stuff on the page currently which names famous fans then go for it. But I'm for leaving out the last paragraph about the Bulldogs even though it was there the day the article was promoted - a 7 year old rivalry in a 70 yr history since CB started doesn't seem much of rivalry to me; the 2nd sentence about the points-stripped has no relevance to the Roosters; and the final sentence says that in 2003 Bulldogs won 2 match-ups while Easts won the 3rd - big deal that's no particular rivalry. - Sticks 66 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the PD rationale on the Sports Ground photo to an Australian pre-1955 PD rationale, please see image page. There is a strong liklihood that the shot was taken pre-1955. - Sticks 66 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the rationale, as I can confirm that the image was from 1937, and is thus PD in both the source country (Australia) and the US. There was also an associated 1937 PD image showing the other half of the ground, so I've replaced the image with a derived work combining the two. - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a pile of refs for history up to 2002.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, prose and image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist - per FA criteria concerns, especially referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have completely sourced the Crest, Colours, Stadium, Supporters, Stats and Records. I and other project members of WP:RL will do the History and Squad section within the next day. The main concern as noted by the nominator is sources, The Coaches and Rivalries section have been removed and Stats & Records has been completly sourced. As I just stated, the rest of the article will be done in the next day. Hopefully other more better people in prose and English, are able to help with the final concern. Thus I object to the delisting by one nominator.  The Windler    talk  23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to panic (I won't be closing it anyway).  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally reevaluate my positions on these things after work has been completed to bring the articles up to speed, so feel free to drop a note by my talk page when y'all are done addressing the above concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be saved no problem, I thought that as no other sources were being added apart from by me about three weeks ago that nobody was interested. Anyway, I think the references need to be checked to consistent formatting - templates make that easy, and also, SFS, SCG, SSG is used over and over when an abbreviation should be used I think. Also, if possible, subbing out some of the Roosters self-refs would be good.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still one tag in Statistics and records and an unsourced paragraph in Colours, but the level of sourcing is much better than when I started the review. Hopefully these rugby sites are all reliable; I don't know much about them as an American. For the 1931 Three Blues photo, would it be possible to link to a page showing that image, instead of just a search engine? In the Stadium section, the Sydney Football Stadium photo is pushing the next heading to the right. Would be nice to get a copy-edit, as I found one typo and a faulty hyphen in a quick scan of the prose. Overall, though, it looks much improved.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Made the refs consistently formatted.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see referencing improvements throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice this until now, but what is up with the enormous photo in History? It's taking up more than three-quarters of my widescreen. Otherwise, I'm satisfied enough with the changes, assuming that the sources are okay. I'll make a couple simple formatting fixes after finishing up here to help this along.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Originally, the image wasn't uploaded in the highest resolution avaliable. I uploaded the highest resolution image, but presumed it was at a set size on the article. Fixed now.   The Windler    talk  05:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the best prose in "History" ("the club", "the club", "the club"), but such repetitions are maybe inevitably in sports' history sections. Besides that, it reads fine, and it is well-referenced. Keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * copyedited teh history section and the lead. There were some oddities in there  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've made a pass for MOS and prose, and the article's pretty close. Some of the inline comments need to be resolved, for example the internet forum info in the "Supporters" section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments I've made a few minor prose and MOS tweaks. Some remaining issues:
 * 1) It appears that "St George" should be "St. George" throughout, regardless of EngVar, as the article is at St. George Dragons, the category agrees, and even the team's logo uses the period.
 * 2) The Honours section would benefit from presentation in a table. The bolding is unnecessary.
 * 3) There are too many lengthy navboxes at the bottom of the article. Most of these should be true navboxes, and default collapsed here. Of what use is the group "Former...clubs", as the Roosters are not one of them, and the ones relevant to the article are already linked in the text?
 * Overall this is in pretty good shape.Maralia (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.