Talk:Brisbane Broncos/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):

The lead has instances of bad link formatting: ref one is just a naked URL, and there's a direct external link in the text at the end.
The sections are all messed up. Unfortunately there's no template for rugby league team articles, but see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs, that should apply perfectly well.
"State of Origin": this is never explained, only wikilinked.
"Club legend Allan Langer retired mid-season, perhaps as a result of the team's form.": no ref, WP:OR
"Notable players": the picture here is not appropriately labelled, who are the players?
"Supporters": this section contains one sentence of prose: "The Brisbane broncos have the largest fan base of any rugby league club in Australia." There is no ref, which there should be. Further, it's only a list of notable supporters, which is peripheral information. There is nothing on such subjects as traditions, chants, socio-economic and geographic origin etc.
- Solved.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Corporate": this section is tagged for expansion.
There are 6 dead links (see [1]). Lampman (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some effort has been made to improve the article, though issues still remain, particularly with structuring and sourcing. I will give the article one more week, and then check back. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Lampman (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though some changes have been made, the main concerns of this review – to do with structuring and sourcing primarily – have not been addressed. I will therefore delist this article now; if adequate measures are taken in the future, please contact me and I'd be happy to give the article another look. Lampman (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]