Talk:South Sydney Rabbitohs/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this page:

The article is fairly well referenced but there are several dead links in the references section. The links are: 11, 26, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 51, 53, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 69, and 76. 16 dead links, these must be repaired if the article is to stay at GA.

I'm also a little concerned about Reference 74, which is the NRL home website. It is cited 8 times in the article (mostly in the Statistics and Records section), yet when I link to the article I come to the home website. Since most of the information is drawn from the statistics and records portion of the website I think it would be best to link to that in the article rather than the home page. Currently the link does not really help the reader get more information. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

74 has been replaced by the club's official records page. It's probably less independent, but I can only assume the records were moved from the NRL's website to the club's website. I've checked that all claims are listed on the new page, and they are. GW(talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One question, have the Rabbitohs been involved in any negative publicity? The article is very positive towards the club, which is fine, but I'm wondering if there have been any negative periods beyond just stretches of bad play? I'm thinking about controversies, perhaps shady dealings to get certain players, instances of gambling or points shaving, any players caught using performance enhancing drugs, that sort of thing. As I read this it sounds like I'm looking for dirt, which isn't my intent, I'm just trying to find a little more balance to the article. If there is nothing then that's fine, but for a team that has existed for over a hundred years there's bound to be a skeleton or two in the closet.

The primary issue from a GA standpoint is the dead links, if those can be repaired I will keep the article, the balance question is more a suggestion that can be taken or dropped as the editors see fit. I'll hold the article for a week pending work on the links. H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All the relevant dead links have now been fixed whilst a handful of obsolete links have also been deleted. Sattlersjaw (talk)

Re controversy, my understanding is that the main controversial issues affecting the club during its long history are already in the article - i.e. its exclusion from the competition in 1999-2001, court battle for reinstatement, subsequent privatisation due to financial problems, subsequent falling out between owners Russell Crowe and Holmes a Court, underperformance on the playing field just before and after exclusion and bitterness over player losses and gains with rival teams - apart from the above, there has for the vast majority of the club's existence been far more positives than negatives - and these positives are of course also highlighted. During the history of rugby league in Australia there have been many more clubs with worse troubles than Souths, and not many that have the same long history of achievement.

Hope this helps in your assessment of the article. Sattlersjaw (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that the dead link issue is the main focus of your review H1nkles (and good on you Satts for fixing them so quickly). I would be concerned if you were suggesting that the GA status might be in jeopardy because there isn't enough dirt dished on the club in the article. But that's not really being suggested is it ? -Sticks66 11:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am not insinuating that I would delist it for lack of dirt. My comments were intended to insure that all aspects of the club's history was in the article. Everything looks good except for link [52], it's a live link but appears to go to a non-specific website that has nothing to do with the reference. Please confirm this though as I may be mistaken. At any rate the article is fine and will be kept GA. H1nkles (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)