Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Peer review/St Helens RLFC

Assessment review
No, I think it should stay at Start-class, here are some reasons why:
 * The lead is good, nothing wrong there
 * History is not meant to be weighted or biased. i.e. something that happened in 1905 must get the same coverage as 2009. This article is heavily slanted to recent events. There is absolutely no need for the 2009 season section. This article is about the club itself, not the 2009 season in specific. Create a 2009 St. Helens season article. That doesn't mean you have to create an 1905 article, but this article is heavily slanted towards recent events. See WP:RECENT
 * Some of the history section is unreferenced, although this won't stop it getting to C-Class
 * As I said, the 2009 section needs to go, no ifs or buts
 * Look at articles such as Sydney Roosters (FA-class) and Brisbane Broncos (GA-class), and the way that they work. They are different, but they cover all aspects.
 * Tables and statistics, there are more tables and statistics than any club article I have known. Prose with the occasional statistics, is much better than tables with statistics. Again look at those articles mentioned above and how they deal with those type of things.
 * Again, some more recentism with 2008 and 2009 fixtures but not 1895-2007. (Not that you should put any)

The lead and history section are quite good, nearly of B-Class. But the rest is not. Tables and Tables of information are a start, but they are not encouraged on Wikipedia compared with prose. Hope that helps, and sorry in my delay.    The Windler      talk   23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment review #2
This article is of C-Class, but fails to meet the criteria for B-class:

Referencing

 * The lead either needs to be referenced, or not. You can leave it unreferenced, since a lead mustn't contain new information that isn't in the rest of the article already (presuming that information is referenced later on, of course).
 * Several parts are badly referenced:
 * The part about St Helens Recs, in particular, the fairly assertive claim about the 1930s Wall Street crash;
 * Season summary table (although you should see my comment later in this review on this table first);
 * Rivalries between Leeds/Bradford/Warrington have none, Wigan has few. Given the rivalry between Wigan and Saints, and Leeds in recent times, I'd expect much more;
 * Mascots;
 * Honours;
 * Player records;
 * Coaching register.


 * Referencing style is good enough for B-class, with universal use of citation templates.

Coverage

 * There's plenty about St Helens success. The article needs to include information on periods where the club wasn't so successful, to put its recent success into context. Anyone reading this article would presume St Helens are the New York Yankees of rugby league - this is not true when you have South Sydney in Australia, and Wigan in the UK. I'm probably not the best person to tell you that, being a Wigan fan, but honestly, that's the objective truth.
 * There is no information at all on the club's stadia. A mention to the new stadium is made in the article's lead, but it isn't mentioned in the main body of the article - this imbalance needs addressing. I'd recommend a new section on the club's stadia.

Structure

 * The history section needs to follow chronological order. For example, in the 2000s section, the story jumps from the 2000 WCC final, to the 2002 SL GF, back to the 2001 CC final, then resumes in 2004. It's confusing, and I don't know what happened in 2003. Perhaps you should attempt to do a sentence/paragraph for each year, in chronological order.
 * A small note on abbreviations and terms. The name of the article is "St Helens RLFC". You do not need to put this abbreviation in the brackets in the article's leading sentence - it's already been written out in full before. Also, after the lead sentence, stick to one term for the club. Instead of switching between "St. Helens" and "St Helens" and "St Helens Rugby League" and "The Saints", use one and one only. I'd choose "St Helens RLFC", later using pronouns - "the club".
 * The table for the season summary is effectively repeating what's already been said in the text. There's no need for this. I'd recommend moving the table to a new article named "List of St Helens RLFC seasons". This would also help rectify the imbalance The Windler talked about before.
 * International Players, Players receiving Testimonials, Notable players can all go into one section, or even an article, like in the example of Ipswich Town F.C. and List of Ipswich Town F.C. players.
 * Section "St Helens links" should simply be "See also", like every other article on Wikipedia.
 * Kit evolution section can be embedded quite easily into the History section, and should be.

Writing

 * There are a few spelling mistakes. Off the top of my head, I can remember "loose" instead of "lose", and so on.
 * The article needs to improve its compliance with the Manual of Style if it is to achieve GA status. Hyphens should be en dashes, with no spaces inbetween the numbers and the dash. References should follow immediately after punctuation marks, with no spaces in between, and in numerical order. That sort of thing.

Supporting material

 * Article has lots of images with suitable captions. Has an infobox. Just a word of warning: GA articles cannot have images flanking text on both the left and right sides, as is currently the case in the 2000s section.

Accessible

 * The article is reasonably accessible. Some rugby league terms need explaining for it to be readable by someone with absolutely no idea of the sport, but for B-class, it's good enough.

Plenty of areas to improve upon, but the article is well on its way. Sorry for the late review. GW (talk)  16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)