Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusaders (rugby)/archive1

Crusaders

Hi, I'm submitting this article for peer review now as I think it's nearly ready for FAC nomination. This article is on the rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. I'd really like any comments that could help fix any issues that may arise during an FAC nomination. Please be specific, I'm especially interested in comments regarding criteria 1a, prose especially. - Shudda ^talk 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, in respect to criteria 1a "the pose is compelling, even brilliant" I think this passes it well, the informal tone I noticed during the GA review seems to have been disolved aswell. My one thought is in relation to the section on the team colors and uniform, it seems pretty short, see if you can incorporate it into another section if at all possible †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the second and third paragraphs in the lead-in. They are too long to be a summary of the club's history. They should be condensed into one short paragraph. The prose in the club history section needs some work.GordyB 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ,as per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article,". So I've included information on history, records, and notable players, because these things are all covered in detail in the article. Also "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Looking at it though, I think there may be too much detail, but something on history, records, and notable players should definitely be there. Also, could I have some more detail on what prose, specifically, needs work. It's not as helpful just to say it needs it. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing too many sentences begin either 'The Crusaders' or 'The Blues'. Some of the sentences need to be re-written so that they have a different start.GordyB 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]