Wikipedia:Peer review/Eye-gouging (rugby union)/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on the article as I'm considering putting it forward for FL status.
Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you still interested in getting input on this article? When you say "FL status" do you mean "FA" status? Or are you emphasizing the list aspect of the article? --Noleander (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am trying to emphasise on the list element based on what was said in the previous PR. I suppose I should have written Featured list. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Noleander
- Wording: "has been proven to have ..." - Proven is not quite right for an encyclopedia article: there was no court case. How about "reported"?
- Who? " arresting the perpetrator. " - Name of the perp?
- History? - The History section doesnt really seem to be about History. I'd expect to see some policies/events from many decades ago. For example, the final sentence "In 1992, Richard Loe made contact with ..." seems out of place .. why isnt that in Examples?
- Sections: Consider making a single top level Overview section, and within that include subsections for Definiton, Scales, History, etc.
- Table format: looks really nice.
- Footnotes: I dont think you need to have each footnote twice for each row in the table: just once will be simpler & easier to maintain for future editors.
- Wording: "Sanctions for eye-gouging have been subject to debate depending on interpretation ..." - That is a bit confusing. Can you make it clearer .. what debate? what interpretation?
- Time frame? - When was the "dangerous" rule established? Why is 1992 the first reported case? Wasnt it happening before 1992? If so: was the rule not enforced then?
- Detail? - " The regulations provide a scale .." - What regulations? Specific to eye gouging? or just "foul play" in general?
- Citations: look good ... although my eyes glaze over after awhile, so I'm not always the best judge :-)
- Redudndant: "The IRB could not subsequently cite Rougerie outside ..." - Word "subsequently" seems unnecessary.
- Lead needs more: the Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article: can you add some more text?
- Overall: it is not quite up to FA standards. It looks a bit choppy, and doesn't feel comprehensive. Why dont you implement the above suggestions, and let me know when done, and I'll take another look.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Doing... (Going to be out of town tomorrow, but bug me if I don't have something posted by the end of Sunday, EST.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by David Fuchs
- The fact that the lead needs more to summarize the article suggests to me the article is missing coverage; as Noleander points out, the "history" section doesn't really touch on a lot of history at all. Rugby's been around for hundreds of years by now; there's nothing in historical rules about the offense, or even that there were no rules about same?
- I know nothing about rugby; that said, it seems odd to me that the "definition" starts out without defining in what terms foul play is defined? Is there a single worldwide codified set of rugby rules? Who maintains them? Is that who defined the foul play and subsequent quotes? (You mention the Rugby Board later but I'm not sure just by reading the article if that relates to the above content.)
- Prose has issues, such as overuse of commas ("Although Matt Iles, the player alleged to have injured Harding, was found not guilty by the RFU, who could not determine which player was responsible,[15] Maidstone RFC were fined £2,000 and deducted 50 points after being found "guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game".[16]") and unnec. passive voice ("The incident was also investigated by Kent Police but no criminal charges were brought against Maidstone or the player due to insufficiant evidence.")
- Overall, a solid start, but I think it needs more and then needs to be smoothed from there. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)