Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll take a look at this - will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.. it has won 36 SANFL premierships, including six in a row. - I'd put the years of these in the lead.

make sure all references are formatted, not just bare urls, there is template:cite web format which may be helpful.

the only player to score a major. - were they called majors at this time? Or is this just colloquial here...

The last two sentences of the 1870–76: Early years should go in the following section...?

Norwood is linked twice and should have the explanation of what it is ("recently established Norwood Football Club") at first mention.

In 1896, with the club in crisis, the club committee met with the aim of revitalising the club. - leaves me wondering..how?

Port Adelaide's champion players from this era include Harold Phillips, Ken and John McKenzie, Archibald Hosie, Charlie Fry and Stan Malin. - maybe a word on what positions or something to make it less listy...and a ref or refs.

.. after the game between the club and South Adelaide was abandoned after a dispute. - err, what was it?

Champion players introduced in this era include John Cahill, Peter Woite, Dave Boyd, Geof Motley and Russell Ebert. - any attributes or anecdotes or anything to make this less listy

Overall I think this is within striking distance. Will double check for more stuff to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me this article does not read like a Good Article. The wording is not particularly encyclopedic and it reads more like a fan page at the moment with some history that was in the article last year now missing. For example, David Granger was Port's most prominent player in the 1970s and early 1980s and was the first footballer in the SANFL to be suspended on video evidence. Mention of this is not only now gone, but there is no mention of Granger at all despite his career with Port Adelaide being listed at number seven in a television show on "South Australia's 20 greatest sporting controversies". By way of contrast there seems to be too much player and match detail. Do we really need to know how many marks or goals a player got in the 2004 final if it was not in any way exceptional? Length also seems excessive with this article running to 20,000 words while the articles on the other AFL teams (who have been in the AFL up to a 100 years longer than Port) vary from 6,000 to 10,000. Wayne (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would've been hard for Port Adelaide to have been in the AFL for 100 years considering the fact that the AFL name was adopted in 1990. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prosesize tool say the article does run to 55 kB (9699 words) - generally 50 kb is the upper limit of article size. Being a Sydneysider and predominantly NRL supporter, I am not familiar with SANFL history so hard for me to know the most important bits. All input appreciated (NB: I think WLRoss (talk · contribs) comment can be taken to assume VFL/AFL. However this has both SANFL and AFL so agree alot of history to process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for putting me onto the prosesize tool. I was just copy/pasting text to word. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in South Australia consider the AFL and VFL as the same entity as it is basically the VFL with a name change and a few extra teams. The SANFL in contrast is not closely related to the AFL. I agree that a split is required. There are far too many statistics throughout that break up the history. For example, I am not particularly interested in statistics as history is my main interest so find the article overly complicated. This was a problem with an article I frequently edited so I split a section off into it's own article. The new article achieved Good Article status. And as a bonus, the edit wars that plagued the original ceased. Wayne (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

- jury still out on this one. I do think alot of it is an engaging read...so veer on passably 'yes'.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

- there are still alot of references that are bare urls

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

- there are still alot of sentences that need sourcing

No original research:

- I don't think so from what I know of the history, but difficult if material lacks sources. this automatically becomes a 'no' if article all referenced

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

- length is a problem - I think we have a look at daughter articles. See (my team for instance) - Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and History of the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

- unclear due to comments above. Probably only very mild though

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

- I think we need to split as above example

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

(however there are alot of non-free images, which some editors might feel uncomfortable with, but I agree they are appropriately tagged.

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- sorry, this has been open a month and I think we need a major split. I'm happy to help with this however and help improve it. I have a soft spot for the club and can help getting to GA/FA standard, as I have done it a few times before. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]