Talk:Melbourne Storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Melbourne Storm is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	The article on Melbourne Storm is supported by the WikiProject on Rugby League, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Coaches

Adding a coaches section. --Cyclone James 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder club?

What does that mean?

A feeder club is one that 'provides' juniors for a bigger club. Usually it's teams in the area or the club's own junior teams (in NSW Premier League for example), but Melbourne does not have its own junior team and RL is obviously not very strong in Melbourne, so they get most of their players from Brisbane Norths (and recently Nth Sydney Bears too). When they're dropped from first grade also, they usually go back there. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up!? and other gripes

OK, apart from the fact that a reference to a (admittedly) poorly written sentence was removed, but the sentenced re-written, the article needs a major cleanup. There is a lot of superfluous information that maybe shouldn't be there, moved or in it's own article. On top of that, some parts are poorly formatted, repeated or unclear.

Does anyone agree with me? Does anyone not see the point of being bothered with doing that? It should be set up so that it is low maintainance, has little day-to-day information, and is more like an encycopedia article, hopefully even fully referenced! Maybe even one day FA status....well, maybe that's a little while away!
Cheers Guys BradK 08:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)