Wikipedia:Peer review/Eye-gouging (rugby union)/archive1

Eye-gouging (rugby union)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the article is well written and has fair references and I would like other editor's input on it as I'm considering nominating the page for Good Article Status under sports and recreation as Wikipedia's 1st Rugby Union specific good article so can anyone give us some tips on how to improve it or even if it is currently suitable for Good article status.

Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber
Eeww. gross topic..


 * Unabbreviate IRB and link it.


 * Needs a history section. I am sure it didn't start in 1992 (I remember the Loe case well though).


 * Any reason why it is worse in union than league? Needs rationale and explanation. I'd maybe combine with league, or with baseline concept at Eye-gouging- both pages are short and the definitions are the same.

Wow, I was hoping it was some weird rugby slang but, holy...Res Mar 14:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianbouton comments: I've had a quick look. I tend to agree with what Casliber has said; here are a few more points:-
 * With only 436 words of text the article is very short. Unless you are intending to expand, it might be better to consider this as a list.
 * Single short-sentence paragraphs, and bullet-point presentation, should be avoided.
 * Definition section: the first para of this section provides a wording which is cited to [2]. I caanot find this wording on the cited page.
 * "Scales of the offence": In the first sentence, wikilink "test match". Were Schalk Burger and Sergio Parisse both concerned in  the two incidents mentioned (which is how the sentence presently reads)?
 * "Examples": Add a year to 24 November
 * Table: "High-profile cases" is not an adequate heading. Who has classified them as "high profile"? Are there other cases in first-class rugby union that have not been listed? If so, why were they omitted. It should also be clarified that the table is limited to proven cases of misconduct.
 * Ref 6 lacks a publisher
 * In the references, non-print sources (e.g. BBC News, BBC Sport) should not be italicised.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)