Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Peer review/Super League XV

1) Referencing

The article contains enough references to establish notability and verifiability. It is in no danger of being speedy deleted;
Large parts of the article remain completely unreferenced, for example, the whole of the "Teams" section. Some statements which are likely to be challenged ("Catalans Dragons are the only team outside of the United Kingdom, Crusaders are the only team in Wales, and Harlequins are the only team to be based in a capital city (London).") are not referenced;
This is more to do with style than any set Wikipedia consensus, but I think dates are much better written if you write them out in full, rather than leaving them as "YYYY-MM-DD", which is what has been done in the "References" section. "9 December 2009" is much clearer than "2009-12-09".

2) Coverage

"Rule changes" and "Notable moments" sections are completely empty. Several other parts are in need of much expansion;
Non-existent templates have been transcluded into the article. These templates should either be formed, or removed until they have been formed;
In the "Disciplinary" section, it mentions 'the following table', yet no table has been placed;
Instead of listing out the precise radio stations which cover rugby league matches, would it be easier to state "Local radio stations operated by the BBC, in addition to some commercial stations, broadcast live commentary from their local rugby league matches"?;
The television part is extensive, and generally well-written. In terms of structure, perhaps merging the two paragraphs on Sky Sports should be considered, as well as the three paragraphs on television broadcasts outside of the UK.

3) Structure

Article has a very well-written lead, given the lack of material elsewhere in the article (a game hasn't been played in this season yet). The lead as it stands should be used as a foundation for a lead as the article is expanded over the coming year;
The article seems to follow a chronological structure, mentioning the background (teams, rule changes) first, the results and league table in the middle, finishing with awards. Since the RFL's disciplinary process takes place during the season, the sections "Awards" and "Disciplinary" should be swapped to keep the chronology;
Reference list seems well-compiled. Like the lead, this format should be used in future.

4) Well-written

For this part, I'll just pick out examples. It's fair to say the article needs a proper once-over to ensure there are no grammatical mistakes:

'The play-offs commence following the conclusion of 27 round regular season';
'Awards were presented' (wrong tense)
'Highlights are shown on Boots N' All which is shown on Sky Sports and is rebroadcast on the Internet.' (is that really a word?)
'A national repeat is broadcast overnight during the week, the BBC Director of Sport, Richard Moseley, commented that this move was in response to the growing popularity and awareness of the sport' (full stop needs to be here somewhere).
'...and the large number of requests from people who want to want to watch it' (repeated words)
In radio, it says 'Super League XIV' in the Super League XV article;

5) Supporting material

The article has a relevant infobox, and an image showing the locations of all Super League XV teams. If the templates existed, the article would be sufficiently well-supported, possibly even by good article standards;
The team locations image, however, needs updating. "Celtic Crusaders" are no longer called that name. When updating the image, upload it as a new file, since that image is also used on Super League XIV.

6) Worldwide appeal

For this section, I roleplayed, and pretended I had absolutely no idea what rugby league was:

What is a "Minor Premiership"?
The article uses the word "sides". As someone who has no familiarity with sport, I don't know what "sides" means.
In the awards section, a lot of them are meaningless. "Carnegie community player of the year" could mean anything, whoever gives most to charity, whoever rides a bicycle to training every day, whoever does voluntary work at the local hospice. The same could be said for a lot of them. It may be best to offer a detailed explanation of each award, or just stick to the commonly intuitive ones (Man of Steel, Young Player of the Year, Coach of the Year).

Indeed, it could be argued the others aren't notable to warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia.

Other comments

One possible case of self-promotion where the "Internet" section provides a link to a pay-per-view website's schedule. Whilst the inclusion of this list may be benign, it does raise a question over the neutrality of the article. 'If that website has a link to it, why don't all the others', for example.
In terms of an assessment, this article cannot be rated 'B' because it missing large amounts of information that would be expected in an A-class article and has some way to go before repairing that deficit. In my opinion, it also insufficiently referenced. The article does not meet speedy deletion criteria, so at minimum it is Start-class. It's fair to say the article is more developed than a Start-class article, however, and is only missing two of the criteria for a B-class article, so I personally rate this as a C-class article.

GW (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]