Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Roosters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sydney Roosters

Sydney Roosters featured article candidate (May 2006)

This article previously had previously been nominated for featured status earlier this year, but failed because of a number of shortcomings relatingly mostly to references and the structure of the article. However, in the past few weeks I've put some work into it to get it to what I believe is of featured article status. The article appears to be well-written, well-referenced and only includes information that is relevant and essential. It recently went through a peer review and all suggestions to improve the article have been done. --mdmanser 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me! But one question: why are Eastern Suburbs and Sydney City Roosters bolded in the second paragaph? It seems unncessary to me. Never Mystic (tc) 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I used the featured article Arsenal F.C. as a model for this article. I noticed under their history section the names of both the former and current clubs were bolded, perhaps as an identification of an important name in the overall context of the article. I naturally did the same with the former club names of the Sydney Roosters as well. As you said, it was probably unnecessary in the first place and I'm on your on the issue. --mdmanser 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. You've done a good job on this article! Never Mystic (tc) 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any reason why this article is not featured content. Todd661 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wholly good article, but I personally don't think that there are enough references for an article of its size, and the lead section could do with an extra paragraph, to be honest. SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, which parts of the article do you believe need to be cited further? I'll put them in you suggest any.--mdmanser 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Object' Neutral—1a. For example, the second para in the lead is a real problem.

Eastern Suburbs were founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908, but in 1994 changed their name to the Sydney City Roosters. In 2000 they again changed their playing name to their current name, the Sydney Roosters. The Bondi Junction-based Roosters have a long-standing and fierce rivalry with neighbours the South Sydney Rabbitohs located in Redfern, who are the only other remaining foundation club.

• • You've referred to the Eastern Suburbs as a location in the first para, and now it's assumed that the same words refer to, or used to refer, to the club. You shouldn't have to reread it to work it out. You do, in fact, spell it out at the start of History, but that's too late.
  • "Roosters" occurs three times in four lines; remove the middle reference.
  • "with neighbours the" is ungainly.

And further:

• • No hyphen after -ly.
  • "Eastern Suburbs, as they were more commonly known as, were also donned the unofficial nickname the "Tricolours" due to the use of the club's red, white and blue playing strip." Riddled with mistakes and ungainly prose.
  • Trust me, an en dash is better than a hyphen (32-16 --> 32–16).
  • "kicked off their existence"—No way.

These are just a few examples at the top. You need to locate copy-editors who are interested in this topic and who are relatively unfamiliar with the text of this article. Major clean-up required. Tony 15:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've located and made ammendments to some areas which I felt were a little weak in grammar. Hopefully you feel the article is closer to being featured now. --mdmanser 08:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well structured, well written, very informative. There is no reason why it should not be.Sbryce858 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very light on references imho. There is only one in the colours section, and few in the history and so on. (non free use) images lack fair use reasonings. Also, how many players in the current squad really deserve an article of their own? In all honesty? People seem to just create players so that the squad looks pretty without red links, I mean, some of those guys have not even made a first grade debut! That needs to be looked at. Good article, but not yet ready imo.Narrasawa 06:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrasawa could you please highlight areas that need references. All sufficient information has the footnotes required, plus the history of the club has an entire reference of the entire article from another source. Also I'd like to correct you, the fact being that all players listed have made their first grade debut and also raise the fact that the Sydney Roosters article itself is the one being analysed here, no other article. I fail to see any relevance to how other articles linked to the Sydney Roosters one bears any relevance at all. IMO you've objected on biased view and have stated things that are incorrect.124.186.243.153 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to go through and reference whatever you'd like. A previous person commented on the same issue but didn't offer any advice. I just feel that it is in most cases unnecessary to reference every single sentence. Each of the players in the article have made their First Grade (top grade) debut, which definitely contitutes an article. However, because of two requests for more citations, I will do just that right now. --mdmanser 10:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just added another half a dozen references to reinforce what's been said so far. I can't find anywhere else in the article that requires citing attention now. --mdmanser 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes Mdmanser made in response to my post. Thanks!-Narrasawa 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• It shouldn't still be easy to find problems in the writing if this is a serious nomination. For example:
  • "The club was founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908 under the name Eastern Suburbs, but in 1994 changed their name to the Sydney City Roosters." We have "was", then "their". Which is it, singular or plural? "In 1908" would be neater after "founded". Please consider using quotes for "Eastern Suburbs" rather than bolding it. The "but" is a little uncomfortable—which part of the previous clause are you going to contradict? Why not: "The club was founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908 under the name "Eastern Suburbs"; in 1994, the name was changed to "The Sydney City Roosters", and in 2000 to just "The Sydney Roosters".
  • "... who are, along with the Sydney Roosters, the only other remaining foundation club in the National Rugby League." What's "other" doing here?

Not only does the writing throughout fail 1a; the lead fails 2a—See WP:LS Tony 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - as pointed out by Tony, the prose problems are extensive and the article needs a thorough copyedit. The article is also undercited, and some of the references need to be expanded to contain full bibliographic info (for example, newspapers should include publication date and author, where available). I fixed the footnotes to comply with WP:FN. Sandy (Talk) 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • I just expanded one of the footnotes as a sample of the work still needed on the others: when citing a newspaper, the footnote should include information like author and publication date, so that future readers can find the sources in a library or online should the reference links go dead. Please correct all notes. There are still numerous facts throughout the article without cites. Sandy (Talk) 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Sandy. The main problem here is making sure you cite sources multiple times; you may have the same source cited 5-10 times in the course of the article. That's fine, as long as people can be assured that the information is contained in the source. — Deckiller 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The -ly + hyphen is still there; perhaps I shouldn't bother pointing out specific issues.
  • "An major reason for this success"—nope.
  • "eighteen", yet "19".

These are entirely at random. Very easy to find. Tony 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deckiller has kindly helped to copyedit the article thoroughly, and from looking at the article now, I can see major improvements in the prose and grammar. I will definitely go through and add dates and authors to footnotes one last time, but in terms of the main body of text, I think we're pretty much done. --mdmanser 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support — the references are pretty much on the money for a 30-35 KB article (and a sports article to boot), the prose has improved (while not 100 percent yet, it's getting good), etc. — Deckiller 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Business information — would it be possible to get some info on the ownership/off field info and that sort of thing? That might look good integrated with the history section. — Deckiller 11:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean in regards to business info Deckiller? There is a sub-article on Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club (Eastern_Suburbs_Leagues_Club) which is the main financial backer of the football club. Other than that the CEO is listed. If you could give some guidiance of what exactly to write about, Im sure either myself or mdmanser could do the research and provide, but I'm a little lost with what exactly you feel is needed? Thanks 124.187.59.19 07:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah okay, never mind. — Deckiller 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was asked to revisit the article in the light of more recent work on it. It's better, so I'll change to "neutral" on the understanding that you fix at least points one and three below.
  • "Eastern Suburbs, as they were more commonly known as," ... ahem.
  • "Dave Brown set several point scoring records that remain unbroken." Hyphenate "point-scoring" and it will be easier to read. A double adjective is better announced earlier than later in the sentence. (Small point, but worth fixing.)
  • There are em dashes (32—16) separating the scores: this is wrong. Use eN dashes (32–16). Even hyphens would be better than thse huge em dashes, but you may as well just change the m to an n in the code. You know that you can use just a single key stroke for these? On Windows, I think it's bottom-left and top-right keys together, if you have a numeric keypad at the right. Tony 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Deckiller beat me to fixing those changes! But earlier on I fixed the suggestions on references that Sandy made, and right now I think they're all done. Thanks to all who made suggestions as to how to improve the article and get it to this status. Thanks, --mdmanser 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)