Talk:Australian rules football/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there - I'll be reviewing this article over the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a very impressive article. What comments I had can be seen below. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have placed the review on hold - take what time you need to address the changes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, I've improved upon and now removed the Orange tag from the tagged section.(This should have been the last thing you listed I needed to complete.) I'll keep working on the undercited/uncited section over time, as it's work that absolutely should be done, but this should hopefully fulfil everything? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Etymology and names

• Having "etymology" in the section header implies that there will be some info about where the name comes from originally; because "Australian rules football" is quite straightforward, I'd recommend changing the header to fit.

History

Origins

• "In Melbourne, Victoria in 1858..." → comma after Victoria

First rules

• "The following year, on 14 May, the Melbourne Football Club officially came into being..." → I think "officially came into being" could be replaced by "was officially established" or something similar, so it doesn't seem like the club popped into existence from nothing.

Effects of the two world wars

• I'd change the header to "Effects of the World Wars", as specifying "two" is unnecessary if "World Wars" is plural; additionally, "World Wars" is traditionally capitalized.
• World War I and World War II could be linked here - I'll defer to your judgement on that.
• "World War I saw the game in New Zealand go into recess for three-quarters of a century" → I'd perhaps reword this a bit, as WWI didn't last for that entire time; maybe clarify that WWI started said recession of AFL in NZ and give any specific reasons if they're given
• "ANZAC Day clash"/"ANZAC Day" → target article does not capitalize all of "Anzac"

Laws of the game

Field

• "(or, in the AFL Women's 16 players)" → comma after "Women's"
• "with strict penalties for too many players from one team on the field" → "with strict penalties for having too many players from one team on the field"

Scoring

• The caption on the image of the football needs a full stop after its last sentence.

Structure and competitions

• This section is orange-tagged, so that will have to be taken care of.
• Lots of words are unnecessarily italicized in this section - I'd remove italics on "football season", "Premiership", "finals series", "ladder", and "home-and-away". Leave italics on "de facto" as that is Latin.

Other notes and overall assessment

Just a broad point - there are several sections that are either very scarcely cited or totally uncited. However, this technically doesn't disqualify the article from promotion, since these uncited sections aren't giving direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements are are challenged or likely to be challenge, and contentious material relating to living persons. I won't fail because of this, but if you're looking for another place to improve the article, the following sections fall into this category:

• Interstate football and the ANFC: first paragraph uncited, second paragraph has 1
• Field: all uncited
• Match duration: all uncited
• General play: first paragraph has 1, other 5 uncited
• Scoring: first and third paragraphs uncited

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Thanks for undertaking this review, and the timely manner in which you've done it! I'll address the orange tag as soon as possible, as I've obviously got to go reference hunting for this so it'll take a little longer. I also had a feeling you'd bring up the general lack of references, although I'm glad they're not a deal-breaker. I was already planning on starting to rectify those regardless of the outcome of this review. I do have one point of interest - what would you suggest being the recommended new header for the 'Etymology and names' section? Would a section header mimicking the further information header (Names of Australian rules football) suffice, or should I add something different? I'd just like a bit of clarification. Thanks again! Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Something like that would work, as would something simpler like "Name", which is used at Association football. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed. Most of the above mentioned sections are still uncited, but that's not a dealbreaker per the GA criteria. Happy to pass, well done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)