Talk:Melbourne Storm/Archive 1

This Archive page has been created to store item o=n the talk main talk page that are nolonger relevant or are obsolete.

Drew Horn

Who is drew Horn? News Limited owns the Storm. Changed. Paulyt (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Coaches

Adding a coaches section. --Cyclone James 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Feeder club?

What does that mean?

A feeder club is one that 'provides' juniors for a bigger club. Usually it's teams in the area or the club's own junior teams (in NSW Premier League for example), but Melbourne does not have its own junior team and RL is obviously not very strong in Melbourne, so they get most of their players from Brisbane Norths (and recently Nth Sydney Bears too). When they're dropped from first grade also, they usually go back there. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up!? and other gripes

OK, apart from the fact that a reference to a (admittedly) poorly written sentence was removed, but the sentenced re-written, the article needs a major cleanup. There is a lot of superfluous information that maybe shouldn't be there, moved or in it's own article. On top of that, some parts are poorly formatted, repeated or unclear.

Does anyone agree with me? Does anyone not see the point of being bothered with doing that? It should be set up so that it is low maintainance, has little day-to-day information, and is more like an encycopedia article, hopefully even fully referenced! Maybe even one day FA status....well, maybe that's a little while away!
Cheers Guys BradK 08:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else believe that the initial introductory paragraph is too long winded? The introduction should not contain statistical information eg how many premierships the club has won or lost as this in contained in numerous other spots thoughout the article. The intro should only contain basic info on what the club is and where it is located etc. If noone has any objections I will modify it. Anderch (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to my post above i will commenece a clean up in two weeks if there are no objections. Also I propose to remove the following sections as they are not required and superfluous. 1. Statistic section completely as this has its own page, 2. Coaches and captains section this info is contained in the season summaries also the crowd stats. this can be moved to the stat page too. I will make these changes in two weeks if noone has any objections. Anderch (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Run-on side

Moved to 2007 page Londo06 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

Hi, I've put this article on hold. There are several reasons for this. I'm going to go through the good article criteria as listed here and list the reasons. I'll try to be as comprehensive as I can. I'll then list some suggestions that if ignored will not prevent the article being listed as GA, but that you may want to do anyway.

1a and 1b.

• "The Melbourne Storm are an Australian professional rugby league football club based in the city of Melbourne, Australia. The Melbourne club play in the Australasia's elite competition, the National Rugby League premiership." I would removed elite, is peacocky and pointless, also remove Australian in the first line because it's redundant (the team is based in Melbourne, Australia)

•  Done changed to first grade.

• "The club also became the minor premiers in 2006. They made the grand final in 2006, but lost to Brisbane and became Runner Up." - wiki-link minor premiers, and why does Runner Up have capitals?

•  Done

• Overall I think the lead needs expansion, more on their history, and you should probably add their major records, and something on their colours.

•  Not done I personally don't think it needs expanding, but if you still insist.[ Just noticed the checklist for this article's development. I am writing a more expansive history for consideration} Proberton (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and Ribot steps" - you mean stepped? Also, can Super League be linked, especially as many will not know about the Super League wars.

•  Done

• "finals in 3rd position" - third not 3rd

•  Done

• "was thrashed" avoid this kind of language, give the score instead (it's not listed) and people can make up their own minds whether it was a thrashing.

•  Done

• "St. George Illawarra were clear favourites due to comfortably defeating Melbourne just three weeks earlier." reference this, only because it may be controversial. Remove clear as well.

•  Done

• "With three minutes remaining, Craig Smith, the winger for Melbourne, went over the line however was knocked out by a high tackle which caused him to lose the ball." Instead have "With three minutes remaining Melbourne winger Craig Smith was knocked out by a high tackle which caused him to lose the ball over the try line." Also wiki-link winger if you can.

•  Done

• "Between 2000 and 2002, the Melbourne club performed poorly. Cracks were starting to appear between Johns, Ribot and Anderson through out the period, and Anderson quit as coach of Melbourne mid season of 2001, and was replaced by Mark Murray." Cracks and poorly? Be more encyclopaedic. Detail their 2000, 2001 and 2002 performances, where did they finish on the table? Wins/losses? Cracks started to appear? What does that mean, be more specific, disagreements? If so about what?

•  Doing...

• "Between 2003 and 2005, Melbourne made the finals under coach Bellamy, but lost before the grand final." This might not be clear to some people, you mean that they were knocked out before the grand final right? rewrite this to make that clearer.

•  Done

• You should delist the coaches section. There have only been three coaches and I that section would be much better with some prose. See Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles for help.

•  Done Not done Removed, its pointless really.

I agree - the few coaching appointments are already listed in the main history section anyway. mdmanser 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Many of your section headings violate the MoS. You have capitals where there shouldn't be. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalization.

•  Done

• See WP:DASH regarding dashes. It's annoying i know, but you need – dashes (eg 43–12) between scores.

•  Done

• Your wiki-linking is a bit off. You don't need to wiki-link the same thing multiple times in one section. In the history section Brisbane Broncos and Glenn Lazarus are linked more then once.

•  Doing... Then why do you want Super League (above) linked twice within a section.

• The names for clubs is inconsistent as well. For some you write the full name, for others only part of it. It's not consistent (eg Auckland for Auckland Warriors yet Brisbane for Brisbane Broncos etc etc).

•  Doing...

• Jargon wise be careful. There is no linking of try for example.

•  Doing...

2

• No issues here.

3

• The history section needs expansion. I don't believe there is nearly enough information there. Especially about the 2000-2005 seasons. I would expand considerably if possible, even if only another three sentences on each of those seasons.

•  Not done For the history section, I think it's long enough. If you check out Sydney Roosters and the size of it's history. Considering that the Sydney Roosters have been around since 1908 and Melbourne only since 1998, I think it's long enough.

• There is no section on the clubs grounds (unlike Sydney Roosters). I have no problem on their not being a supporters or rivalries section, as I think these are generally POV and full of OR.

•  Doing... Though I think that this article dosen't need to be carborn copy of the Roosters. And Melbourne have only been at one stadium so it's not going to be a big great section.

• Maybe more could be said on how the team of the decade was selected.

•  Doing...

4

• No problems here.

5

• No evidence of edit warring

6

• Only logo here. Fair use rationale is acceptable.

That's everything. I will place the article on hold. The history and grounds sections may require more work then is possible in a week. However if it fails when you renominate let me know on my talk page and i'll review it quickly. For my advise regarding improvements not necessary for GA status:

• Images - I would find some images of the team and add them. Obviously they have to be free or if not have a very good fair use rationale, but they would significantly improve the article.
• References - your referencing style for the book 'The History of Rugby League Clubs" looks pretty awful. My advice is add a bibliography section, then reference the books pages like this: "Collis (2004), pg 344." This will save you time and make the references section look much nicer.
• Other advice - I think the article will need significant expansion before being ready for WP:FAC. The history section and records section would need to be expanded a lot. Also the prose may cause problems, there are some people that hang around FAC that would pick it to pieces!

Anyway thats it, any questions or concerns feel free to contact me on my talk page. - Shudde ^talk 03:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK it's been a week so I thought I'd come back and check whats up. The following things still need to be addressed:

• The lead needs to be expanded. The best way to do it is to summarise the article. So summarise each subheading (except lists).There needs to be more info on history, colours and emblem, and mention the most notable club records.
  •  Not done Per WP:LEAD, an article that has less than 15000 characters (which it does) should only have a lead about one or two paragraphs. Considering it has three, I don't think expanding the lead is necessary. SpecialWindler talk 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• The history section needs to be expanded. I know that it's only ten years old, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't mention each season.
  •  Not done Each season may not be as notable as another. 1998 was there first season, notable. 1999 won premiership, important 2000-2005 didn't go as well. Look at Brisbane Broncos, its a good article, it has been there for 20 years, won the premiership 6 times but manages to summurize that all in less than what this page has done in 10 years. SpecialWindler talk 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• The coaches section is important! It needs to be there! All I'm saying is delist it, wouldn't need to be long, only three or four sentences summarising when and why they were hired and fired (or quit) and if possible how the team performed with them in charge. Again, only a summary but better then a list.
  •  Done this has been done in the history section.
• The wiki-linking can be done two ways. Either something is linked when first mentioned in the article, or when first mentioned in each section (the exception is lists). I don't care which way you do it.
• Doesn't matter if the stadium section isn't long, but as it's mentioned in the lead you should have it in the main article. What you have there is fine but it must be referenced.
  •  Done
• Need to say how the team of the decade was selected, only need a couple of sentences.

As per your above list not everything has been done.

• •  Done only one sentence.

It has been a week already, so please do these things pretty quick. Otherwise you'll have to renominate at a later point. - Shudde ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I have passed for GA. I still think the history section needs expansion. I'm not saying a subsection on every season, but I do think that just saying they didn't do well for three years is not good enough. I for one would have loved to have found out more about the clubs history, and I finished reading it feeling kinda unsatisfied! - Shudde ^talk 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On a couple of points, if I may add my 2 cents...

• Colours: Should it be mentioned that the official club colours are "Navy Blue, Purple, Gold and White. It has always been that way and still is - and on that note, should the melbourne colours picture be changed to reflect that? (As listed on the NRL website)

Within that colours section, might it be an idea to talk about the evolution of the playing jersey? or is that just needless?

• Club Records: Should we have those in a more "nice" looking set of tables than there used to be? Or too unnecessary? (sp!) Such topics as heighest scorer, most games, best/worst results list? Perhaps add win/loss record home/away to all time results?
• Perhaps, if we are copying parts of the roosters page, with respect to a fans section, talk about the Bai Stand, the official renaming of the existing stands and perhaps even the uniquness of the crowd (including cowbells etc.)
• Also copying - a rivalries section? incl. St George for obvious reasons, and then the sharks and the sea eagles for HB theft, and I guess Brisbane perhaps

I hope this is maybe helpful, if not, just ignore me.

BradK 11:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry

Is it just me or is this whole section pure fiction? It's gotta go.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced pov, OR, whatever you want to call it. It's gone. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on Jeff, we've been in the league for 10 year. So you say it's too early to have a rivalry with anyone? Fair comment, B8ut Melbourne Victory have been in the A-League for under 5 year yet already have rivalies with several clubs. Why don't you go complain about their "made up" rivalry?60.224.2.159 (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're on about there. I don't approve of fictional, unciteable rivalry sections on any articles. It has nothing to do with how long a club's in a league. If you want to make an assertion that the Melbourne Storm have a greater rivalry with certain clubs than others, you're going to have to reference it or it will be challenged and removed according to Wikipedia guidelines. Simple.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Inserted quotes from Darren Lockyer and Cameron Smith that very neatly and explicitly comment on the rivalry between the Storm and the Broncos. Paul Roberton (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

New gurnsey

The 2009 one has a silver stripe rather than a white one. The image should be updated.60.224.2.159 (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

obsolete

The phrase " For the past three years, the Golden Boot Award for the World's best player has been won by members of the Storm" in the lead needs updating. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Chase Stanley

According to his WP article, the SMH and Daily Telegraph he was born in Bankstown and with his NRL registration listing him as a Kiwi. So here's the question then. Does nationality mean ethnicity? Does it mean the culture to which he most generally identifies or (inserting rhetorical question) for the purpose of rugby league mean the nation for which he qualifies to play? If this debate has been had elsewhere, can some one paste a link and I'll shut my gob(lol) or else I'd be interested in fleshing it out a bit. I'll change the flag icon when I fix the formatting. Paul ( Paul Roberton (talk)) 09:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Salary cap breach

Battlestations, ladies and gentleman... Comes.amanuensis (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They were not stipped of their 1999 premiership. Get it right people. Shredded.carrot (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

user:grapestar knows exactly what he's doing. Incidently, the 2000 World Club Challenge win should be included again.,Don't feed the trolls. It's easier to lock it up for a while longer. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kerrod, 22 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "The Melbourne Storm are a so-called Australian professional..." to "The Melbourne Storm are an Australian professional..." (removal of "so-called", it's vandalism in light of the news of the clubs recent Salary Cap breach. Kerrod (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Fixed by someone else. BejinhanTalk 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Salary cap breach

I've improved this section to a reasonable standard, rather than just stating the penalty (: JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The most widespread reporting is that violating the breach is outright cheating. Why is this never mentioned? Why is there nothing about the clubs owners requesting fraud charges be laid? Why nothing about the millions lost from cancelled sponsors and Waldron stating he expected the club to fold. The current treatment makes the breach look little more than an oversight. Wayne (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Can it be shortened a bit? It's larger than the rest of the history seasons and dominates the article. Maybe a shortened version and link to it's article. The Bulldog's one is nowhere near this large. 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

A number of vandals have been active on this page. Although I am not a Melbourne Storm fan and agree fully with the sanctions take against them, this vandalism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Many are understandably angry by what has happened, but this page is not the place to vent your frustration by inserting the word "cheat" all over the page and putting up comments that dig the boot in. If you want to rant about Storm, go do it on a forum. This is an encylopedic entry, not a place for venting your anger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APiggyCalledBobby (talk • contribs) 03:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly, a different flavour of vandal has moved in, these ones trying to whitewash the affair and pretend it didn't happen.

Bit slow off the mark on the scandal ...

I came here expecting at least a tiny section about the scandal that has neutered this club. No smoking ruins? Looks like business as usual on the page. Tony (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be semi-protected for another few days, in my view. Tony (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See section 1.3.1 APiggyCalledBobby (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed: good work, and let's keep it up. WP can do unfolding events well. Just one thing: no one knows who the whistleblower was? And the whole of the first paragraph has only one ref tag [25]. Is all of that info attributable to 25? Tony (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The person accused of being the whistleblower has denied it was him. I believe a different person was recently accused but have no further details. I had a look and the paragraph is covered in two adjacent articles in the same newspaper (owned by the teams owners). Most was from the page 1 article (continued on page 6) with the rest from another article on page 7. Have added the second reference. Other newspapers would confirm the details. Wayne (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the scandal needs a stand-alone article? Whether your opinion is yes or no, I would suggest you take a look at this AfD. Your input is sorely needed.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Former CEO Brian Waldron, current chief executive and former financial officer Matt Hanson, and current financial officer Paul Gregory, are alleged to have been the main culprits behind the incident. " There is no reference for this statement, and there should be. Be careful- I will direct people to the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones and WP's guidelines on the Biographies of Living People. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's great for WP to cover unfolding events, and this is an important one. But it must be done with the highest standards of verification and NPOV. Needs tightening in this respect. Tony (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because news limited owns this team and published papers like the daily telegraph (sydney) and the herald sun (melbourne) it'd be wise to not use them as sources for anything regarding the incident. not only are they sensationalist and bias in their own right, but news limited are trying to blame everything on the owner of the team and not the company that owns them (i.e. themselves). - Drthatguy (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Drthatguy: shift key is left little finger. You make it harder to read with the eccentric total lower case. Tony (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

salary cap scandal

Deserves its own article. it is not just WP:NOTNEWS as it has had deep impact across all professional sport in Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure its fair to say it has a DEEP impact. Harold Mitchell investigated the deals he'd done on behalf of the Rebels, and the AFL investigated the players signed by St Kilda under Waldron. The scandal hasn't made the front or backpage of the major dailies in many weeks now. The forensic investigation is ongoing but nothing dramatic has been reported. Let's not make this bigger than it is. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth creating a separate article for the Melbourne Storm Salary Scandal as there is a lot of information in the Melbourne Storm page, which is probably too much for this article. Also there is more information, some repetitive, on the Melbourne Storm Season 2010 page too. I think it should all be combined into a separate page of it's own an then links placed on these two pages. If anyone has any issues please discuss here otherwise I will do it in a week.Anderch (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Then deputy Prime Minister, Gillard said

"...deputy prime minister, ... said ..."
So there's a small problem: Gillard became prime minister June 2010; the reference is from April, when she was deputy prime minister. Some suggestions:
- Then deputy prime minister, ... said ...
- Storm's number one member is [Prime Minister] ...

--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 07:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

GA nom

This neeeds a lot of work while it waits for a reviewer to come YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Melbourne Storm/GA2. 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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)