Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brisbane Broncos/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:22, 5 May 2007.

Brisbane Broncos[edit]

I think this page is a worthwhile candidate for FA... It is a good article with referencing etc. SpecialWindler 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's a few Peacock terms in there ("an amazing turnaround"), and some of the sentences don't quite gel ("This is perhaps due to the many players who represent theQueensland Maroons in the State of Origin series, this extra workload may cause a loss of form to the club." doesn't quite make sense), but overall, it's not a bad article. Laïka 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done, fixed those examples mentioned. SpecialWindler 07:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, your images need Fair Use Rationales. Laïka 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Doing... I havent done this before, but theres a first time for everything. SpecialWindler 10:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Hopefully, I might be wrong, but i tried?? SpecialWindler 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replaced the "colours" image with {{football kit}}, to show better the kit of the team, but feel free to revert if it is not as good as the previous image. Laïka 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed those they don't go with the article, it looks dodge (good work though), i removed the other colour thingo too. SpecialWindler 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What there is looks good. However there is not nearly enough info. Stadium section is too short, nothing about Supporters or Rivals. Records section should be more than just a list. Needs a list of there Honours. Buc 10:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Doing... Not trying to be rude, but just because this page doesn't look like the featured article Sydney Roosters, doesn't mean it has to be a clone?? but i will take your suggestions into account and make changes, thankyou. SpecialWindler 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I have changed the records section, there was alreagy a honours section. Stadium partially longed, the info is on the subsequent pages (main pages), I don't think there is enough information on Supporters and Rivalries to add sections. SpecialWindler 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've already said on the Broncos' talk page, I really don't think the broncos have a greater rivalry with one club than another. I'm against the inclusion of this section. It would be misleading to people unfamiliar with the broncos and puzzling to people who are. I know it was suggested by an editor in this FA review, but I doubt that that person is familiar with the subject matter. Creating a major rivalries section just for the sake of having one is wrong.--Jeff79 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a and formatting. Prose needs work throughout, and there are several formatting/stubby paragraph issues. Here are random examples from the top:
      •  Doing... As you say below, being familiar with the article you miss little things like this. I'll be looking for more than your examples and thankyou. SpecialWindler 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Broncos played a significant role in the following Super League War before continuing to compete successfully in the National Rugby League competition of today." Is "of today" necessary? Second time NRL is linked; usually, items need only be linked once.
    • The four stubby paras in the lead should be consolidated into two or three.
    • "Queensland’s success in the 1980s State of Origin in addition to the inclusion of a Brisbane team in the mid-week competition convinced the New South Wales Rugby League to invite a Queensland-based team into the competition." Needs commas before "in addition" and "convinced".
    • "The Broncos secured the services of Wayne Bennett, who remains the clubs coach 20 years later." "Clubs" should be "club's". "remains the club's coach 20 years later" can be reworded to "who is still the club's coach" for succinctness.
    • Spacing issue between the [2] ref and the next sentence. I also see similar spacing issues throughout the text.
    • Please avoid repetitive "the broncos" wording. Try "the team" and "the side" for variety.
    • I recommend moving the season by season records chart to below the prose sections, making the history section into one section without subheadings. It'll help the flow of the table of contents and the prose.
    • One sentence para in the middle of the history section. Try to compress that into one of the other paras nearby.
    • "But in 2006, the Broncos' luck changed." Sentence needs rewording. Try "However, the Broncos improved in the 2006 season." As a matter of fact, the entire section could use an audit for words like "luck" and similar analysis of the team's successes or problems; they are not usually the best words to include. Speaking of which, I believe "faired" should be "fared".
    • These are signs that the prose needs auditing to conform to the "professional standard" required of featured articles. Try the League of Copyeditors; the article needs editors unfamiliar with the text to spot other similar errors. On the whole, however, it's an excellent article; it just needs more tweaking to conform to FA standards. — Deckiller 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead uses one of three paragraphs on Broncos being the only team listed on the ASX, along with details on who owns the most stocks and how many. But I can't find any more about this further down. I sort of expected to find a section about the coorperate/financial side in the article, or at least more details on things like when it was first listed, a bit on the history behind it and also some information on how the club is doing financially (is it profitable, how has the stock been doing after it went public, etc). I've seen many FA's mentioning interesting things in the lead for never to talk about them again, so I guess it's not a reason to oppose a FAC. So I'm not opposing, just suggesting what might be added to make the article more complete. When a team is publicly listed on a major stock exchange, it's more than a sports team, it's also big business. And I suggest writing a (small, even) section on that side of the Brisbane Broncos would be worthwhile. Shanes 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. You see, there is not much information on that aspect of the Broncos after all they are the only rugby league club in Australia on the stock market. However your right, that part should be backed up down in the article, but it might be better served if those two sentences are put in the History section??, I think its better up the top but ... We'll see. SpecialWindler 05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As part of WP:RL I'd love to see this article get promoted, but there are a lot of things I'd like added and changed before it gets to that stage. At the moment there are a number of things I'm unhappy with, including that season summary table - surely trivia like that shouldn't be featured on this main page like that. I can also tell you that there is going to be stiff opposition for this article being promoted based on just 12 references and given how short the article is compared to similar articles (see Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs). The history section is just one screen in length, and the article could do with a "Support" section given Brisbane's unusually large fanbase. Rather than simply making criticisms I'm happy to help out fix the article up, which I will do. --mdmanser 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for your support, the references are adequate if you check the 12 references they are used numerous times each. Also The Broncos have only been around for 20 years not 100. SpecialWindler 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick sweep of the non-history sections including some more wikilinking, addition of material and maintaining a consistent prose throughout most of the article. However, an independent copyeditor will need to help out on the article from here on to improve prose even further in my opinion. Upon reflection of my previous comments, I'm now thinking that perhaps a "support" section is not needed (it is integrated into "stadium") but perhaps a rivalry section may need doing if reviewers believe the article requires more length. However, that said, any such section will likely be very short and superfluous given most of the rivalry information is already stated elsewhere in the article. mdmanser 13:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The depth of content and sources available for articles on South Sydney Rabbitohs and Sydney Roosters (both 100 years old) is far greater than for a club of this age (the same goes for the other NRL clubs for that matter); those evaluating this article for FA status need to take this into account. My only suggestion to expand the history section would be further reference to the Brisbane Rugby League competition, the migration of Queensland player to the NSWRL and the Combined Brisbane representative side that competed in the Amco Cup. This would put the formation of the club into context. CumberlandsAshes81 12:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—the prose is definitely better in those two sections, but there is still plenty of work to be done throughout. — Deckiller 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brisbane_Broncos/archive1&oldid=128370415"