Wikipedia:Peer review/Sydney Roosters/archive2

Sydney Roosters

This article had a peer review a few months ago, but was generally unfinished with respect to references. At the moment I think everything seems to be referenced quite well and sections have been tidied up to comply with the Manual of Style. Perhaps my only concern would be elements of bias in some sections and perhaps the need to move some of the latter sections to a separate subpage in order to just keep the "essential" information on the main page. Could anyone make any comments with regards to this article? Cheers, --mdmanser 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally pretty good. Some points, mostly fairly picky:

Ensure that rugby league jargon is explained or linked to the first time each term is mentioned. It is unclear what "the finals" are, and "minor premiership" is only linked further down.
"The years spanning from 1926 to 1942 were arguably the most successful period for the club in its history" should either be referenced or rewritten as "one of the most successful periods of the club's history" or similar.
Nicknames such as "Super Coach" Jack Gibson and "Transit Lounge" should be referenced.
Avoid euphemistic terms e.g use "lost" instead of "went down".
Are there any sources for membership numbers more specific than "healthy membership numbers"?
"The Kevin Hastings Stand is a designated area for families to watch the football in a safe alcohol-free zone." Are the other areas regarded as unsafe? If not reword this sentence.
Ditch the "Current transfers" section, that sort of thing is more Wikinews than Wikipedia.
I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value of the lyrics to "Here come the Roosters".
The rivalries section strays into POV territory at times. Tone down the language, and perhaps consider merging with the Supporters section. Phrases such as "the 2004 Grand Final left a dirty taste of Roosters supporters who still hope to extract revenge upon the Canterbury-based club in the near future." should be removed completely.
The references should be formatted in a similar manner to the footnotes.
Are there any books about the club in print? Currently all the references are web based.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for those suggestions. I've gone through each one of those and made the neccessary ammendments. I'll keep this Peer Review on here for another week or two just in case anyone else wants to add any comments before I send it off for a featured article candidate. Thanks again, --mdmanser 13:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]