Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePort Adelaide Football Club has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
June 26, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

SANFL presence post AFL entry[edit]

Ping User:Thejoebloggsblog and User:TripleRoryFan. Joe, you seem very averse to including a short overview of club's on-field form in the SANFL after 97. Can I ask why? Furthermore, you Got rid of the infoxboxes saying other reserves teams don't have such a feature. Collingwood Football Club, Gold Coast Suns, Essendon Football Club, and others, all have tables of scores detailing their results in Grand Finals and/or statistical overviews of each season. Why not something similar here which matches the format used for GF scores everywhere else in the article? Jono52795 (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without putting words into his mouth I think the issue he had was that it was only a reserves grand final and they didn't win. The only reason I reverted the edit was because I thought it was odd for content to be deleted without any explanation as to why. I do think that it should be included but I am quite new to Wikipedia and don't necessarily want to go against a decision someone else had made. That said I am unsure why the AFL team I support has anything to do with editing this article, most of the articles I've been working on recently have nothing to do with the Crows. TripleRoryFan (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thejoebloggsblog: I'm not going to revert again because I've already done it several times. Can you please explain why you're opposed to the inclusion of that sourced prose. I'm still not sure why you actually object to it being there. TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SANFL club: separate article or here?[edit]

There has been an article titled Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL), and there is discussion ongoing at its talk page about whether content on that club needs to be in its own article or combined in here with the AFL club. It looks some material is in both places, so I'd encourage readers here to look at that page, so there's enough participation to determine consensus on where the SANFL material should go. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Right, I'll take a look at this - will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.. it has won 36 SANFL premierships, including six in a row. - I'd put the years of these in the lead.
make sure all references are formatted, not just bare urls, there is template:cite web format which may be helpful.
the only player to score a major. - were they called majors at this time? Or is this just colloquial here...
The last two sentences of the 1870–76: Early years should go in the following section...?
Norwood is linked twice and should have the explanation of what it is ("recently established Norwood Football Club") at first mention.
In 1896, with the club in crisis, the club committee met with the aim of revitalising the club. - leaves me wondering..how?
Port Adelaide's champion players from this era include Harold Phillips, Ken and John McKenzie, Archibald Hosie, Charlie Fry and Stan Malin. - maybe a word on what positions or something to make it less listy...and a ref or refs.
.. after the game between the club and South Adelaide was abandoned after a dispute. - err, what was it?
Champion players introduced in this era include John Cahill, Peter Woite, Dave Boyd, Geof Motley and Russell Ebert. - any attributes or anecdotes or anything to make this less listy

Overall I think this is within striking distance. Will double check for more stuff to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me this article does not read like a Good Article. The wording is not particularly encyclopedic and it reads more like a fan page at the moment with some history that was in the article last year now missing. For example, David Granger was Port's most prominent player in the 1970s and early 1980s and was the first footballer in the SANFL to be suspended on video evidence. Mention of this is not only now gone, but there is no mention of Granger at all despite his career with Port Adelaide being listed at number seven in a television show on "South Australia's 20 greatest sporting controversies". By way of contrast there seems to be too much player and match detail. Do we really need to know how many marks or goals a player got in the 2004 final if it was not in any way exceptional? Length also seems excessive with this article running to 20,000 words while the articles on the other AFL teams (who have been in the AFL up to a 100 years longer than Port) vary from 6,000 to 10,000. Wayne (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would've been hard for Port Adelaide to have been in the AFL for 100 years considering the fact that the AFL name was adopted in 1990. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prosesize tool say the article does run to 55 kB (9699 words) - generally 50 kb is the upper limit of article size. Being a Sydneysider and predominantly NRL supporter, I am not familiar with SANFL history so hard for me to know the most important bits. All input appreciated (NB: I think WLRoss (talk · contribs) comment can be taken to assume VFL/AFL. However this has both SANFL and AFL so agree alot of history to process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for putting me onto the prosesize tool. I was just copy/pasting text to word. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most people in South Australia consider the AFL and VFL as the same entity as it is basically the VFL with a name change and a few extra teams. The SANFL in contrast is not closely related to the AFL. I agree that a split is required. There are far too many statistics throughout that break up the history. For example, I am not particularly interested in statistics as history is my main interest so find the article overly complicated. This was a problem with an article I frequently edited so I split a section off into it's own article. The new article achieved Good Article status. And as a bonus, the edit wars that plagued the original ceased. Wayne (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: - jury still out on this one. I do think alot of it is an engaging read...so veer on passably 'yes'.
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - there are still alot of references that are bare urls
Citations to reliable sources, where required: - there are still alot of sentences that need sourcing
No original research: - I don't think so from what I know of the history, but difficult if material lacks sources. this automatically becomes a 'no' if article all referenced

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused: - length is a problem - I think we have a look at daughter articles. See (my team for instance) - Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and History of the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: - unclear due to comments above. Probably only very mild though

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): - I think we need to split as above example

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (however there are alot of non-free images, which some editors might feel uncomfortable with, but I agree they are appropriately tagged.
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - sorry, this has been open a month and I think we need a major split. I'm happy to help with this however and help improve it. I have a soft spot for the club and can help getting to GA/FA standard, as I have done it a few times before. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article length[edit]

This article is incredibly long and should probably be split per WP:TOOBIG. The most obvious split for me is the history section; I know the Collingwood Football Club page has been split and the majority of the history section is in History of the Collingwood Football Club and the history section on the main page is 1-2 sentences per decade (bar 2000 onward, but still isn't massively long).

There are also parts in this article that probably shouldn't be here, i.e

  • Club creed could probably go in history page if/when it's created.
  • Is listing the SANFL squad notable for an AFL club page? Same with the SANFL honour roll post-AFL entry and individual awards post AFL entry (such as Magarey Medal winners, Jack Oatey Medal...)
  • AFL squad changes for 2015 should be in the 2015 Port Adelaide Football Club season page when it's created.
  • Military service section, unsure whether that's overly needed in the article, but can probably be swayed if there is good enough reason.

I know it's difficult because there is so much history with the SANFL and the current SANFL Port Adelaide team is a big part of the club, and I seem to remember there being a discussion about it not being noteworthy enough for it's own page. At the end of the day though, it's still a reserves side and a lot of the information probably isn't necessary on the main page as it can be found elsewhere on the internet and this page probably shouldn't be the base of everything Port Adelaide. I'm not going to do any mass culls because it should probably be discussed first, but I find this page very hard to look at because of length (see also Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The length of this article has been an issue for more than six weeks now (see GA Review section above), I don't know enough about the club history and what is deemed "important", so I don't think I can cull and split effectively, however, I think the first step to fixing the length is to split the history section into another article. I'm going to tag the page as nothing is being done at the moment to fix the issue and even more content has been added since the issue has been raised. Flickerd (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Choppidy, chop-chop.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article as it stands now is a much more manageable 37kb prose, while the History subarticle stands at 42 kb, meaning both can have a little more material and be ok. Anyway, they might need some more massaging. The Hisotory article can be itself subdivided in future as those of many other clubs have been Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving this thread as it has now become relevant a second time - the article's length is currently an approximate 61kb, which means we should highly consider cutting the article's size in some meaningful manner. The two sections I believe we should consider cutting back would be the Club History (as was done the first time), specifically the two sections spanning 1974-1998 and 1999-2012, and the section on the Club's Identity. Likewise, as was previously mentioned in 2015, some section should be reconsider as to their necessity (i.e. The Military Service Section). Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The AFL and SANFL logo with the black background and Port Adelaide Football Club is not the "official" logo of the club. Having the two separate logos side by side is exactly the same as what the club has done in official reports and even on Facebook too.

Examples of yearbook 2016, 2015, 2014

Facebook [1], [2]

Annual report [3]

There is no evidence anywhere that the two logos in front of a plain black background with Port Adelaide Football Club is the "official" logo of the club, and the example of [4] is different to what is on this page anyhow (note the background graphic is different). A one time usage on Facebook is not reliable enough to say it is the "official" logo, especially when all official reports use the AFL and SANFL logo side by side which is what has been done here. Flickerd (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current official logo when representing the Port Adelaide Football Club is the two logos side by side with a black background.
You do realise that the ones for the yearbook are completely different to the one portrayed on this page? In addition, one time usages on social media is not reliable enough, when the contrary is used on official reports. Flickerd (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Flickerd: For what it is worth in regards to the edit in question I initially did the proposed edit over a year ago but decided on the current logo as it is what was being used by the club on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter at the time. The two logos were clumsy and as they lacked a black background differed from the format used in all the PAFC's media.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it looks clumsy at all, and Wikipedia should be what is accurate to the club. I didn't see the edit that you did over a year ago and have only seen this one, and to be honest I haven't felt comfortable with it for a long time as I have never seen it used apart from here. Deciding that the two separate logos separated looks clumsy and better with a black background falls a bit into WP:OR as the black background has never been used as an "official" logo. Clubs do this all the time on social media where they have photos with variations of their official logo, it does not mean it is ultimately their official logo. What is used in official reports is what should be used as a reliable source, which is the AFL and SANFL logo side by side and that is what should be reflected on Wikipedia. Flickerd (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The AFL team and the SANFL team use separate logos, which is not dissimilar to how they use separate names (Power and Magpies). The club uses both logos side by side in places where there is not reference to a specific team. There is no 'official' combination of the two logos. This is clear from the examples Flickerd has linked to above. More recently, the club has placed the two logos together over black backgrounds or dark patterns in line with their current branding (another example here where both a black background and a completely different dark pattern background are used in the same document), but the annual report linked above is an example of where it is used on a white background.
Nevertheless, two separate logos being used on a black background consistently does not mean that this is an official logo. Nor does a clubs social media presence indicate what the official logo is. By that argument you could say that Essendon's logo should be presented on a black and red patterned background, in line with its current Facebook image. A club's branding/livery is not its logo.
For the sake of completeness, I'll point out that in the pdf examples above, some use a raster image for one team's logo with the adjacent logo being a vector, and in other place vice versa. This alone shows that even the club's own graphics department is simply putting the two logos side by side. There is no combined logo.
Given the two teams – the AFL team and the SANFL team – do in fact have distinct logos, and given there is nothing to suggest there is an official combined logo, the best way to display the two logos is as separate logos. As well as being more accurate, the separate images with associated caption is more informative for readers as it shows that the two logos belong to the two different teams, and explains which is which – something the previous graphic failed to do. Kb.au (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Flickerd: The edit I was talking about was done in early 2015. In regards to KB I strongly am against having a caption that insinuates division. The reason the club uses the monikers side by side is to suggest a linear history, not that there are two clubs or teams. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't Wikipedia be what is the most accurate to the club and informative to the reader? A lot of people view this page and even though you may know what the two separate logos are, a lot of people may not who view the page and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't reason enough to have it one way or the other. The fact of the matter is there are two teams and it is on par with the usage of magpies and power, having the caption isn't separating, it's informative and both logos are still present. Flickerd (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Flickerd: The explanation of the two logos is covered in the infobox sufficiently. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thejoebloggsblog: Regardless, the point is, the combined image with black background and text is not an official logo; the two separate team logos representing the two separate teams are. Kb.au (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kb.au: Maybe I will walk around the block to the Alberton Oval office and ask the club for their preference for the logo used on the page. Thoughts? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thejoebloggsblog: You can if you like but you'll likely be in breach of WP:NOR. Kb.au (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the review. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no AFL team good articles at the moment, and I don't think any of them are remotely close to being in good shape. I imagine the best football team articles wouldn't be that different, so Liverpool F.C., Arsenal F.C., and Manchester United F.C. should all be decent guides for what this article should look like. (Albeit, I noticed all the AFL team articles have a "Club identity and symbols" section that football team articles have split into different sections. That's fine.) I've also reviewed and passed a handball team article, IFK Kristianstad, for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most difficult point to address is probably the length of the history section, which is currently 6429 words. Compare that to Liverpool (1733 words), Arsenal (2012 words), and Manchester United (2737 words), the PAFC history section is about as long as all three of those clubs' history sections combined. Aim to cut it down to 3000 words, maybe 3250 would be fine if it's well-written. (And it's worth noting that there is already a separate article just for the club's history.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Apologies for the late reply, I was busy over the previous day or so. I should however, be relatively free until Friday. I'll respond to each comment in turn. Would I be right in identifying the areas that need the most significant cutback as the sections spanning 1974-1998 and 1999-2012? The large majority of the earlier sub-sections, as far as I can tell are much smaller in scope (That is, they only touch on points briefly - 1950-1973 is noticeably shorter despite covering a similar timespan.) Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fair with 1974-1998 and 1999-2012 needing the most shortening. The 1902-1915 section also seems like a lot for only 14 years (and I imagine it's probably not worth highlighting 5 game results from this period in boxes.). The SANFL post-AFL section also seems too detailed. I also wonder if all the date ranges are good as is? In particular, I feel like it makes more sense to start the 1999-2012 section with 1997 (when PAFC entered the AFL) instead of 1999 (when John Cahill left). And my guess is the pre-WWI era can be condensed into just one or two sections instead of four? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be worth leaving pre-WI as two sections (Before 1900/After 1900), as 1900 was the last wooden spoon, which make a good point to end the section. I agree with the highlighting of the games, barring the two 1914 games, as that year was of particular note for the club (and in the sport as a whole.) 1913 and 1910 however, weren't. I'll remove these once I get to it. I also agree with the 1997 start point for the AFL section. What I'll likely do is reformat it as follows - 1997 - 2010 and 2011 - present. (Covering two AFL coaches each, respectively.) Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it makes sense. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Everything should be covered now in terms of content removal. It'll be a case for citing and whatnot from now, but the content itself is complete. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning, the lead for an article this size should be three to four paragraphs. Among the things it's missing is the progression of the club's history. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although you provided the above articles as general guides - could you be a touch more specific in listing exactly what it's missing? I can cover the history issue, without a doubt, but having a more comprehensive list would be ideal so I can make multiple changes at once. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of related to the history, the most important people in the club's history (probably a few coaches, and maybe a few players, or an executive) should be mentioned. The most important home grounds should be mentioned (Alberton Oval and Adelaide Oval, maybe Football Park depending on how you write it). Also, the most important club symbol(s) should be included (I'd lean toward the Prison Bars, and relate that to adding the silver and teal for the AFL). And then just to point out, the last statement (only pre-existing non-Victorian club in the AFL) is good in that it captures the team's status in relation to the rest of the AFL (and Australia or South Australia as a whole). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think my current rewrite should suffice? (pending references, of course). I've tried to condense the information as best as possible, but it seems to cover all the correct beats. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Prison Bar subsection doesn't need to be broken down into sub-subsections. In particular, there is way too much detail to the Prison Bars in the AFL section. It's not synthesized well, and there shouldn't be this many block quotes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a generalisation - would it be ideal to make that section about the Guernseys in general? By this, I mean relegating the Prison Bars to their own subsection, maintaining the one on the No. 1 Guernsey and incorporating the evolution (in the section immediately below) Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Most of the content removed was about this year's controversy, which was largely not notable by itself and better covered by the phrasing that the guernsey's support is extremely high. I also removed all bar one of the block quotes, which I deemed relevant enough to keep. Those were the only notable removals, the rest was largely rephrasing, grouping information, etc. If it needs further work, direct me to the bits you think will need changing. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The club songs should be synthesized into paragraphs. You don't need a separate sub-subsection for each song. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The home grounds section should probably be its own section, not a subsection, and it should discuss the history of the club's stadiums, not just show them in pictures. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable - my only concern would be with Glanville Hall Estate, as there seems to be very little sourcing online in regards to this. Would a brief mention (1 or 2 lines) suffice? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Is there a source for the dates? / Was it their only venue at the time? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources exist for Alberton, Football and Adelaide. The only small pieces (including under the first history section) related to Glanville are largely about the formation of Port, where they mention Glanville as their home, as that was the founder's property. I think the -1879 is filling in the gaps in knowledge, as we know they initially played at Glanville hall from 1870, and first became the tenants at Alberton in 1880 - it stands to reason Port occupied Glanville Hall Estate between 1870-1879. I don't think this is actually good wikipedia practice, if memory serves me. Disregard this section about filling in the gaps (although I still think that's what happened) - I found a source which specifically addresses Port's tenure ending at Glanville in 1879. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat indecisive on this point, so I'll propose it to you - would including a description of stands and the like be important enough to include. The articles about the Premier League clubs do so to an extent, but I feel as though focusing on how the ground are connected to the club would be more appropriate for this section (as it stands, I'm writing two paragraphs for each, this would likely make each section three paragraphs instead.) Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the right approach to focus on how the grounds are connected to the club, rather than specific details. Keep in mind though that the stands may still be important for things like when the ovals had increases in capacity (if/when new stands were added), which stands are named for Port players/coaches, and e.g. the members-only section at the Adelaide Oval. More exact details related to the stands themselves are not needed, if that's what you were thinking? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Football Park and Adelaide Oval are still pending sourcing, but otherwise the wording formatting etc are done.Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, the Honour Board and the the Military Service list should go in separate article(s). If you want to leave these in, they should be collapsed by default, and the Honour Board can't be in all caps (or coloured to look like the actual honour board). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with this idea - however, I'm not entirely sure an article on Military Service warrants its own article. I'd have to go look at notability requirements and the like before acting on this one. I have made them collapsible for now.Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're probably right. I just wanted to bring it up for consideration. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've already addressed this, are you certain it can't be in all caps? I know this is a matter of personal taste (and therefore, it shouldn't hold any weight in discussion), but I believe the board does look better in all caps (I don't mind removing the colouring however). Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:ALLCAPS. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, a situation like this isn't actually covered. I feel like it may be in the best interest to ask the community what the best course of actions is here. If you'd like, I'll add a discussion about this to the Port's talk page? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters talk page. I'd be really surprised if it was supported, though. If you have your own personal photo of some or all of the actual honour board, you can upload that to the commons. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, every paragraph should end with a citation. There are a lot that don't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on this soon. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the two citation needed notices the article had fairly quickly, so that's a good start. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneSportsfan77777 I'd appreciate if you could have a gander at the page now. I've added over 100 references to it, so it should be much much more comprehensive in terms of referencing. I've tried to make notes of what I can/can't/need to still reference in my edit notes, but if you see something I haven't brought up myself, feel free to make note of it here. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are just the major points. I imagine there are probably a lot of minor line-by-line issues just from skimming the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't brought this up in your review so far - but some of these problems (specifically, the lead and home grounds) are due to an overall length issue in the article. It currently spans approximately 61kb, meaning I believe we should consider shortening the article in areas (I've mentioned this in an above section without reply). Apart from those listed, would you have any recommendations to areas in which we could shorten/make independent? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
61 kb is only a little over the limit (50 to 60 kb). Shortening the history section will probably take care of that, and balance out needing to expand any section that needs expanding. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points / questions. I'll get to them, I've been busy in real life lately. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! Was afraid you'd abandoned the review. That's all fine, just answer them whenever you can. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Empoleonmaster23, I replied above, no rush to address anything, just pointing it out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777 Left a few responses to things currently relevant. Keep in mind, I'm saving a large amount of sourcing until after I know what and where to add things. Hopefully the two recent additions should solve two of those major issues you had. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777 Left some comments under various items with some explanations to help clarify some decisions I made, or to explain why I agree/disagree with some of your points. I'll make an effort to change anything I haven't commented on in a timely manner, though. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777 I'm sending a ping just in case you've forgotten about the review here - it's been a couple of weeks with no update, and I'd just like clarification of some items. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor question I have about the use of Wharf Pylons/Prison Bar nickname - which would be more appropriate to use consistently? To my understanding, the well known public equivalent should be the chosen name, whilst the original name should be acknowledged but not used in a widespread manner. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Here are some more specific comments on the history section. Overall, it's still 4517 words (which is a big improvement from the 6429 words at the start!), but probably still a bit too long. Maybe getting down to 3000 words was a bit of a stretch given that the club is much older than any of the comparison club FAs, but under 4000 words is probably still reasonable. I see some things that I'm pretty confident could be taken out. Even with the current version being too long, there are still probably at least a few things that are missing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1870[edit]

  • The club's first home ground was the family property of inaugural club president John Hart Jr in Glanville.[18] John Hart Sr would become premier of South Australia the week following the first match.[21] <<<=== This can just be mentioned in the grounds section.
 Done
  • A lot of this section is just WP:PROSELINE (In 1877, ... In 1878, ... In 1879, ...). This needs to be better synthesized into paragraphs.
  • There are a lot of "firsts" listed. You probably don't need all of them.
 Done
  • The rules of the Old Adelaide club, which more closely resembled the rules used in Melbourne at the time, were ultimately adopted across Adelaide in 1876.[22] In 1877, Port Adelaide joined seven other clubs to form the South Australian Football Association (SAFA), the first ever governing body of Australian rules football. <<<=== You probably only need the second sentence. I think the source says the formation of the SAFA led to a common set of rules being adopted in 1877, not 1876.
 Done
  • During the 19th century the club had nicknames including the Cockledivers, the Seaside Men, the Seasiders and the Magentas. <<<=== This could be moved to the club symbols section.
 Done Fair enough point - I'd debated doing this myself, but felt it didn't really fit in without creating a new section to accommodate it. That, combined with the club's largely stagnant image (and nickname) since the 1900's lead to me leaving it in as acknowledgement to the presence of nicknames, without necessarily going into an unnecessary level of detail. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1902[edit]

  • The 1902 paragraph could probably be condensed.
 Done
  • Port Adelaide was disqualified from a game with South Adelaide after disputing the use of an unaccredited umpire. <<<=== disqualified the finals, not just a game, right?
 Done I believe the former was a consequence of the latter - they were disqualified from a finals match, so their opponent was permitted to continue on through the series, whilst Port 'lost' the match and had their season ended prematurely. The correct terminology should be game though, as it was only that game they were disqualified from. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following a premiership in the 1906 season,[42] Port Adelaide would travel to NSW in the early 1907 season in what was marketed as 'Port Adelaide vs. Sydney'.[43] <<<=== This doesn't seem important.
 Done I elected to keep this less for the Sydney game, and more for the 1906 comment. I struggled to find a natural way of mentioning it independently without going into detail, hence the seven word summary. However, especially considering I skipped over numerous premierships at later points, I'll remove this. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1910 paragraph, is anything important besides the SAFL premiership and the Champions of Australia?
checkmark Semi-done The Broken Hill/NSW section, probably not. I'd argue however, the two West Australian teams are important. (it is considered prestigious to beat a team such as the combined WAFL team.) I've only removed the former for now. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably don't need the 1911 to 1912 paragraph.
checkmark Semi-done Partially agree. I think it's important to highlight that the club was dominant yet unsuccessful prior to 1914, however, I'll concede that the TFL comment is probably unnecessary. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably don't need the score of the 1913 championships.
 Done

1916[edit]

  • The first sentence sounds more like the players left the team to go to the war, rather than they died. You also probably don't need to list the players if they weren't particularly significant as players.
 Done
  • Port Adelaide would initially struggle ===>>> Port Adelaide initially struggled
 Done
  • Clarify they only won two premierships in 1921 and 1928 in 17 years (did I count that correctly?) after the war.
 Done
  • At the end of the 1922 SAFA season, Port Adelaide travelled to Sydney and played a combined New South Wales side on the Sydney Cricket Ground winning the match. <<<=== Similar to the last section, are the matches with Sydney significant?
 Done I didn't add either of these initially, but if I add to guess it would be because they're both representations of the 'wharf' cities, combined with NSW being Rugby League territory. However, I do agree it's probably not notable. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, you probably don't need to list all of the players who died.
 Done

1950[edit]

  • At the end of the 1951 season the VFL premiers Geelong visited South Australia to play the local premiers Port Adelaide on Adelaide Oval. Geelong won the match 8.14 (62) to 6.18 (54). <<<=== This can be shortened. Just say they lost an exhibition to the VFL premiers.
 Done
  • Port Adelaide reached the Grand Final again in 1953 against West Torrens. West Torrens won the premiership by 7 points.[82] <<<=== Is this significant?
 Done Ah, this is actually an artefact of a removal I already performed. It's more significant for West Torrens than Port Adelaide, as that Grand Final was the final one West Torrens would contest and win. I opted to leave it in as it was Port's final loss before the six premierships, but will remove it. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1950s Port Adelaide and Melbourne, often the premiers of South Australian and Victorian leagues respectively, played exhibition matches at Norwood Oval. <<<=== Either this sentence or the above Geelong sentence seems out of order if the Geelong match was one of these matches.
 Done I forgot to add a 'mid-' to 1950s here, my mistake. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following season, Port Adelaide would again finish third. [89] <<<=== Is this significant?
 Done
  • There should be some synthesis to Fos Williams's achievements: How many premierships did he win?
 Pending Did you miss "In 1965 Fos Williams coached his ninth and last premiership in-front of 62,543 people,[78] the largest ever crowd at Adelaide Oval.[92]"? Or are you asking for more detail in regard to his achievements? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the box score thing, shouldn't the team in bold be the one that won?
 Pending I elected to bold Port Adelaide, as obviously this page is focused on the club. This seems to be common practice on season summary pages focused on the individual teams as well, so I figured this practice would be ideal here. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1974[edit]

  • In 1975 a dispute between the Port Adelaide City Council and the SANFL over the use of Alberton Oval forced Port Adelaide to move its home matches to Adelaide Oval for two seasons. ... In 1977 the dispute regarding Alberton Oval was resolved and the club moved back to Alberton Oval. <<<=== Move to grounds section?
 Done
  • The club completed its fourth ever 'Triple Crown', winning the premiership, Magarey Medal and having the SANFL's leading goalkicker in a single season. <<<=== It may be correct to highlight only this one, but just checking: were any of the other three worth highlighting?
 DoneThe fourth Triple Crown independently isn't itself what is notable - rather, the achievements that were part of it are what made this particular one notable. 1914 is arguably also notable, but that year is already notable for being the undefeated year. The other two prior, as far as I'm aware, aren't notable. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be some synthesis to Cahill's achievements: How many premierships did he win?
 Done
  • I don't know if you need any of the block quotes, unless the quote itself is still famous today.
checkmark Semi-doneThe George Fiacchi quote was certainly relevant and was brought up while the club was at risk of folding in 2010. Russell Ebert's quote not necessarily famous. I do have a minor concern about removing it, though - although not necessarily relevant for GA reviews, it would cause a weird formatting quirk in the text around that area, with half the paragraph filling the page and half in between the picture and box score. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should definitely be a lot of detail on Port trying to enter the AFL, but I think at present, there is still too much.
 Pending What specifically should I remove? I've tried to condense the 1991 events as best I can, and can't really see any pieces fit for removal. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the 1990 game worth the box score? I don't even see it in the prose.
 Done I left it in as it did appear notable at first, as it was the final one without an AFL presence in the state. However, on reflection it would probably be better suited to a hisotry of the SANFL in general, not just Port Adelaide. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1997[edit]

  • Port Adelaide opened the 2004 season well with four straight wins, but then won only four of its next eight games <<<=== The paragraph structure is not good here. This sentence doesn't properly summarize the 2004 season.
 Done
  • This section still seems a bit long.
 DoneLikewise with the above in regards to Port AFL entry detail, what should I remove more specifically? I'm going to largely remove the 2007 content and condense it to being Runner's up + losing by a record margin, but anything else worth removing? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011[edit]

  • They hosted Richmond in the elimination finals, kicking the first seven goals of the game and leading by as much as 87 points before recording a 57-point victory.[163] After defeating Fremantle in the semi-finals, the club's season ended with a three-point loss to Hawthorn in the preliminary finals. <<<=== For the emphasis here, the first game is not the most important but it has the most detail. I would instead emphasize the second game.
 Not done I'm not sure how familiar you are with AFL as a sport, but typically a notable game consists of an extremely high or low margin. Despite the Fremantle game being a 'more important' final, the first game is more notable for said leading margin of 87 points. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no players mentioned in this section.
 Pending I would mention any if possible, but none of the club's players have done anything of particularly noteworthy status (i.e: Winning the Brownlow, Coleman Medal etc.). At best I would say Robbie Gray won the AFLCA award in 2014, but comparatively to other awards it is not considered a notable award to win. The other way this could be rectified would be possibly mentioning captain changes, but this would then draw the issue of inconsistency with previous sections, especially 1997-2010. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rounds 20 and 21 saw the club lose to Collingwood and Hawthorn by record margins of 138 and 165 respectively.[155] The following season, a loss against expansion team Greater Western Sydney. ... Assistant coach, Garry Hocking, took over for the remaining four games. <<<=== I don't think this is needed.
checkmark Semi-done Agree with Garry Hocking, disagree with the record losses. Those losses are the worst in the combined SANFL/AFL history of the club, so they are of a noteworthy status - they also serve the purpose of highlighting why the season was the worst in 100+ years. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the worst issue is probably the proseline in the 1870 section. Other key issues are some paragraphs not having good structure, in particular with (1) the introduction sentences not summarizing the paragraph, or (2) a series of accomplishments over a range of years (such as with one coach) not being summarized somewhere. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777 Not to sound impatient, but you haven't posted any updates to this review in over a month. I understand you're busy, both with real life and your own featured article/good article processes you need to attend to, but I would really appreciate if we could hammer out this the rest of the review. Thanks! Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here are comments on all the other sections. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 guernsey[edit]

  • at least in the eyes ===>>> at least in the view ("eyes" is informal)
 Done
 Done
  • Charles Hayter granted ===>>> Hayter granted
 Done
  • It was re-instated the following season, after ===>>> It was re-instated the following season when
 Done

Number panel[edit]

  • the latter becoming the design of choice until 1928 ===>>> the latter becoming the design of choice on tours until 1928 (It was just interstate until 1928, right?)
Sportsfan77777 I believe I can say no, the number panels and numbers were used in the SANFL, but I also don't have any direct source of when exactly mandatory numbers (and panels) were added to competition. Would you like me to better clarify this? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the current wording makes it sound like it didn't become permanent until 1928. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • The club has used the panel continuously since 1953 in the SANFL. ===>>> The The club reintroduced the panel in 1953 and has since continuously used it in the SANFL.
 Done
  • The panel was also present on the club's inaugural AFL jumper, before being phased out after 2009. ===>>> The panel was also present on the club's AFL jumper until it was phased out in 2009. (also, is )
 Done
  • In addition to its long time use by the club, the number panel is also used as a reflection of a local Magpie species, present on the badge of South Australia. <<<=== I know what you're trying to say, but the way the sentence is structured doesn't make sense.
 Done
  • Not so sure, but is "jumper" too informal? (i.e. just "guernsey" instead)
 DoneIt's an Australian colloquialism for guernsey. Under that pretense, I'd argue it's not necessarily wrong if it was defined, but I don't really see a need to define it at the current moment. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prison bar[edit]

  • Regarding the title, is the "prison bar" name definitively more prevalent than the "wharf pylon" name today?
 DoneThis is the case, yes. As you recommended a rewrite of the introduction, I've added the alternate name in there which should address any need for any "/". The Wharf Pylons name is still occasionally used, but it extremely rare in comparison to 'Prison Bars' moniker. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a better first sentence for an introduction. I might suggest something like "Historically, Port Adelaide's most iconic guernsey has been its Wharf Pylon design, previously more commonly known as the Wharf Pylon design."
 Done
  • that would repeatedly last ===>>> that could repeatedly last
 Done
  • the club would win 33 premierships and 3 Championships of Australia. ===>>> the club won 33 premierships and 3 Championships of Australia.
 Done
  • fans of the rival football clubs ===>>> fans of rival football clubs
 Done
  • The Prison Bar nickname first originated <<<=== This paragraph is missing something. You say it started as a bad thing, but today is accepted as a good thing. The section is missing (1) saying that it's now a good thing, and (2) how it stopped being a bad thing.
 PendingThis is... difficult to pin-point to be honest. As far as I could tell, there's not a set reason why the change occurred - I'm adding a statement about the fanbase adopting the nickname to mark that it is now a good thing, but I'll need to investigate that transition to see if I can find anything to use as a supporting reference. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • prison-bar ===>>> Prison Bar (to keep consistency)
 Done
  • Before "The club was first granted the right to wear", something like "Since changing its guernsey, Port Adelaide has made numerous requests to the AFL to wear the Prison Bar guernsey in specific games, only some of which have been approved." That could also probably start a new paragraph.
 Done
  • Relatedly, I might just combine the next two paragraphs into that same paragraph where the requests are first mentioned.
 Done
  • the club was waiting for confirmation from the AFL <<<=== You don't need to say that they were waiting, just that they reached an agreement for something that they were previously denied
 Done
  • On 9 September 2020, it was revealed that memorabilia associated with ===>>> The memorabilia associated with
 Not doneI think memorabilia is correct in the context it is used here? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the figure caption, I might just say "Wharf Pylon guernsey" given the time period. (trying to avoid having to use a "/")
 Done

Evolution[edit]

  • Maybe four and four instead of five and three is better balanced, especially given the partition with the black and white guernseys.
  • Better yet, maybe a table would work better. That way, you could put the "Uniform history" and "Team statistics" next to each guernsey.
  • If you don't do the table, the issue of the "Uniform history" and "Team statistics" not should still be addressed somehow. Right now, it's too difficult to connect each of these notes to their respective guernseys.
 Done For all of the above Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Club songs[edit]

  • Over the years, Port Adelaide has used various songs and music at its games. <<<=== This isn't an adequate summary. Either "They have had four official songs at different times" or "three main official songs" or "two main official songs in the SANFL and one in the AFL" or "two main official songs in the SANFL, and one main official song and an anthem in the AFL".
 Done
  • There are a few instances of just "Port" instead of "Port Adelaide"
 Done
  • Combine the first three paragraphs (all of the pre-AFL things).
 Done
  • Relatedly, "The song remained in use until 1971" ===>>> "The song remained in use until 1971 when Port Adelaide secretary Bob McLean..."
 Done
  • Because the club is not officially known as 'Port Power'... <<<=== This sentence needs a citation.
 Not doneAlright, this one is uniquely difficult because weird situations surrounding it. I've been searching for citations to support this statement for a rather long time, but I haven't been able to find anything.
Currently, I've re-worded it to better reflect events that transpired. Port Adelaide was initially the Port Power, then dropped the Port in 2001. This coincided with a minor logo change. However, there are extremely minimal records pertaining to these changes ever occuring, barring the physical existence of said changes themselves. Finding records of the song, nickname and logo change are near next to impossible, despite them clearly having occurred. I can keep searching, but I can't guarantee anything will turn up, frustratingly. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • various and unique difficulties the club faced when trying to enter the AFL. <<<=== Is this mainly the split of the SANFL and AFL teams? (If so, I don't think just stating that a few sentence later is clear enough.)
 DoneI've opted to remove the second statement about resonating, and provide the reason behind this statement. Is this more sufficient? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logo evolution[edit]

  • Port Adelaide has adopted different insignia's on several occasions throughout its history. <<<=== Also could summarize the logos better. Something like "Up until 2020, Port Adelaide's insignias were designed around having one or several magpies."
 Done
  • different insignia's ===>>> different insignias
 Done
  • and a fence wire ===>>> or a fence wire
 Done
  • adopt colours and insignia ===>>> adopt colours and an insignia
 Done
  • sliver fist ===>>> silver fist
 Done
  • Prion Bar ===>>> Prison Bar
 Done
  • The new PA 1870 logo is permanent, right? If so, that should be stated.
 Done

Glanville[edit]

  • After foundation, it was decided that Port Adelaide's home ground would Glanville Hall Estate <<<=== If you aren't going to mention who decided, then you could simplify to "Port Adelaide's first home ground was"
 Done - I changed this to directly reference the Hart family. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • following 1979 <<<=== following 1879
 Done

Alberton[edit]

  • The following year, the decision was made by the club to start leasing the oval from the Port Adelaide Council for the sum of 10 shillings a year. <<<=== Add they still lease it today (if that's true?)
 Pending
  • The club is also used ===>>> The oval has also been used
 Done
  • with SANFL training temporarily moving to Ethelton between 1997 and 2001 ===>>> aside from 1997 through 2001 when SANFL training temporarily moved to Ethelton. (and link Ethelton)
 Done
  • The club would usually split ===>>> The club usually split
 Done
  • Pending the 1977 season ===>>> With the 1977 season pending
 Done
  • is oldest remaining structure ===>>> is the oldest remaining structure
 Done
  • Allan Scott Power Headquarters <<<=== clarify "for its administration" and link Allan Scott.
 Done

Football Park[edit]

  • it would host all night matches ===>>> it hosted every team's night matches
 Done
  • The club was assigned ===>>> Port Adelaide was assigned (to avoid confusion with Adelaide in the previous sentence)
 Done
  • redevelopment of the oval <<<=== which oval?
 Done

Adelaide Oval[edit]

  • Adelaide Oval is the current home ground of Port Adelaide's AFL team ===>>> Since 2014, Adelaide Oval has been the home ground of Port Adelaide's AFL team (avoid "current", per MOS:RELTIME)
 Done
  • was supplanted by Football Park <<<=== when?
 Done

Club creed[edit]

  • Okay.

Adelaide[edit]

  • Port Adelaide is often considered the best, and most bitter, <<<=== This seems subjective. Has the AFL itself stated this?
 Done They haven't. I've reworded it slightly to be more generalised 'to be among the best', as opposed to an outright top position. I also removed bitter at the same time. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bitter" isn't a very encyclopedic term
 Done - See above Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the current Showdown record?
 Not done Defo a good idea, and may add this in future, but probably unnecessary for the moment Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane[edit]

  • couldn't be separated <<<=== too informal
 Done
  • Ladder ===>>> ladder
 Done
  • In the following years, the rivalry died down ===>>> The rivalry has since died down.
 Done

Norwood[edit]

  • The two clubs would meet for the first time ===>>> The two clubs met for the first time
 Done
  • follow up game ===>>> follow-up game
 Done
  • Port's accession ===>>> Port Adelaide's accession
 Done
  • In 1884, Port Adelaide would win ===>>> In 1884, Port Adelaide won
 Done
  • would bring Port Adelaide's own ===>>> brought Port Adelaide's own
 Done
  • Grand Finals <<<=== not consistent with capitalization
 Done
  • Port winning in 1999 ===>>> Port Adelaide winning in 1999
 Done

Current playing lists[edit]

  • Section name ===>>> "Playing lists"
 Done

Corporate[edit]

  • The guernsey sponsors shouldn't be collapsed or smaller font.
 Done
  • Overall, you can also simplify the guernsey sponsors if you look at the example from Liverpool F.C. where they combine years together.
 Done
  • Before 1978, were there no sponsors or is it unknown?
This is the former, to the best of my knowledge. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The administrative positions and sponsors aren't cited, except one.
 Done Found and addressed.
  • The sponsor sub-sub-headers (e.g. Current major sponsors) might be better off as bold text (e.g. Current major sponsors) than sub-sub-headers.
 Done
  • I've seen other AFL team articles do this, but I don't understand why supporters are a part of corporate?
 PendingActually, I had never thought about this until you brought it up. I'm not quite sure myself, but I may be partially because it doesn't warrant an individual section, but doesn't fit elsewhere? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters[edit]

  • Could expand this probably, but you don't have to.
 Not done - It's probably fine for the moment. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partnerships[edit]

  • Link Kaurna
 Done
  • John Hart Sr ===>>> John Hart Sr.
 Done
  • The indigenous section feels like it is missing something, with just one sentence covering the last 50 years.
 Done
  • You don't need to say "announced" in the China section. (three instances)
 Done
  • As part of the partnership, Port Adelaide also agreed to run an Australian rules football program in over 20 Chinese schools, culminating in a football carnival the same week the AFL premiership match is held in Shanghai <<<=== Is this just for 2017 or every year?
 Done - It was for each year of the partnership.
  • The first AFL game played for premiership points <<<=== The clarification "for points" seems to imply another AFL game not for points, but I think it actually was the first in general.
 Done The source linked actually addresses this - another game was played there in 2010, an exhibition match between Melbourne and Brisbane. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention Port Adelaide has won all three games thus far.
 Not done - Port Adelaide's performances are not particularly relevant to the content of the partnership, so I opted not to mention them. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the COVID-19 pandemic ===>>> Due to the COVID-19 pandemic
 Done
  • I remember the media noting these could games have record TV attendance, but I had trouble finding something concrete that wasn't just a prediction.
checkmark Semi-doneI added a note about TV ratings in 2019 (it's notable enough to list at least), but nothing about the match itself having record ratings. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Club honour boards[edit]

  • Just noting that I fixed the dashes.
  • You need to cite who is on the honour board.
 Done
  • , when it inducted the inaugural 18 members into the Hall of Fame. ===>>> , when it inducted 18 inaugural members.
 Done
  • 40 players ===>>> 40 more players
 Done
  • In the hall of fame panel, the doctor symbol should be explained at the bottom after the bold and italics explanations.
 PendingI believe this reason this isn't done is because it's a template also used on Melbourne Football Club's page, where they do not feature a Club Doctor. (making it redundant for that page) It's currently got a hover=over explanation, if that suffices? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • announced its greatest team ===>>> announced its Greatest Team (and also, explain it's not literally its greatest team.)
 Done
  • Explain who is on the war honour roll (is it every serviceperson?)
 Done
  • The war honour roll link is dead, but you can add the archived link here.
 Done - I have instead opted to add the current link from Port Adelaide's site. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SANFL presence post AFL entry[edit]

  • This section is out of place at the bottom in-between the honour board and the club achievements. I would move it to after the history section, or maybe even make it the final sub-section of the history section.
 Done
  • Move the season summaries to after the club honour board list (as it is basically the same thing). Maybe it would be better as a sub-sub-section as part of the club honour board sub-section?
 Done
  • There should be a key for the Magarey Medallists like in the main honour board.
 Done
  • The season summaries should also be cited.
 Done
  • The writing part is not organized so well. The first paragraph should start off with something like "After Port Adelaide obtained an AFL license, the club instead fielded a reserve team under the same club name to take its place and continue to compete in the SANFL, in spite of efforts from the SANFL to separate Port Adelaide's SANFL team from its AFL team." And the second paragraph should start off with something like. "In response to the SANFL's efforts to divide the club, Port Adelaide began trying to reunite the club in 2010" (not sure about the date).
 Done
  • in 1998–99 ===>>> in 1998 and 1999
 Done
  • remove all the "would"s in the results paragraphs
 Done

Club achievements[edit]

  • Add an overarching citation at the end of this section.
 Done Sportsfan77777 As no such overarching citation exists (the closest I could find was one from Sturt, but Port does not have this.), would I be able to add individual citations after each win count? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. (The "Level" column might make more sense.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777 Taken care of. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • For the references, every online source should have an access date, and the name of the website.
checkmark Semi-done - Name of the website currently pending, all should have access dates where applicable now Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatedly, all caps shouldn't be used (unless it's like "AFL" or some other abbreviation)
 Done
  • There are some links that don't work, which I found using this website.
 DoneI've addressed all the live references, the rest should all have been archived? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, now that the history section is just about done, the rest should be simpler. Some of the issues are still pretty big, but most of the biggest ones are less related to writing (e.g. references, citations, page organisation), so maybe they are easier to handle. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New comments[edit]

Minor comments

  • You don't need citations in the lead. (see WP:CITELEAD)
Addressed, barring one. I left it as the lead is the only place where the club's unique status is mentioned (and is probably the only appropriate place).
  • In the lead, remove "current" both times here (per MOS:RELTIME): The club has played at their current SANFL home ground, Alberton Oval, since 1880 and has used their current AFL home ground, Adelaide Oval, since 2014.
Addressed.
  • colours of Teal and Silver <<<=== I would assume lowercase?
Addressed.
  • The 1890 box score seems "wrong" in that it only includes and not the behinds or totals. Was the scoring system the same back then?
No, it wasn't. The Scoring System during the majority of 1800s was to only count Goals towards the final score. (Behinds were recorded, but were irrelevant) As a result, the box score reflects this.
  • Even if you can't source the oldest sponsors, you could probably source all of the AFL ones.
Addressed.

Bigger comments

  • The SANFL presence could still be better organised. In general, it should be more like "Since Port Adelaide joined the AFL, it has also had this setup in the SANFL. [and then talk about agreements and/or efforts]" The most important outcomes of the agreements and efforts seem to be too buried in the middle of the paragraph.
As far as I could tell, you were specifing the first paragraph here. As a result, I've reordered this paragraph to place the information pertaining to the seperate legal entities first, the ground/players, and finally the 'why' (SANFL clubs).
  • Based off of "The Port Adelaide Football Club has a long-standing connection to the indigenous community.", I would still think this section could more densely cover the last 50 years or so.
I've covered all that's really avalible to cover in detail. That statement is addressing the length of time the club has been connected with the community (effectively since founding). However, I have opted to add a count of indidgenous players to the section to add a minor piece of detail.
  • Looking at the English football example articles (e.g. Liverpool F.C.), one thing I noticed is that they all have a decent amount of prose in the "Honours" section where they list all of the club's titles. The equivalent here would be to have a prose introduction in the "Club achievements" section.
Addressed. It's only a few lines, but it's roughly the same prose length as Arsenal F.C..

Other than that, I guess it's close to done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777 All addressed! I'll list my changes below your comments. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question that I've recently thought of, and figured I may as well get your opinion on it. Would it be worth converting some of the Membership/Revenue/Attendance table into prose and deleting the table in its current form? It's in a yearly list format, is currently unreferenced as is, and I figured Membership Count can fall under Supporters as prose, whilst the Ladder position is already covered in the Honour Board. The Annual Revenue isn't particularly notable, nor is the Average Home Crowd. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the other teams, some form of this chart seems to be in every article, but it's not consistent everywhere. I think all of them have the list of members (There's a site with all of the numbers through 2017. I don't know if something better than that exists. I didn't realize it wasn't cited before). The ladder positions are redundant, but they seem to appear in almost every chart. I think that's fine because you might expect to look for a correlation between membership numbers and ladder position. I think most of the team articles also have the average home crowd. The revenue numbers seem to be the least common out of all of those columns. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the columns are an issue (albeit, they should be cited). It might be a good idea for the AFL project to try to standardize the chart. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I've elected to do, as seen in my edit summary, is remove the revenue column (it's easily the least important, hence why it would appear the least often I'd assume) in addition to using the annual reports created by the AFL for membership numbers. I also used a third party site that listed year-on-year attendances and filtered it to provide the Average Home crowds for that column. 100% agree about standardisation though, I'll likely bring it up at a later date. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm content with passing the article now. All of the major concerns have been addressed and are in much better shape, and it looks good enough to set a decent example for other team articles. Good work! And apologies for taking so long. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Chokoe" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chokoe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Chokoe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Life Magazine Teams Content Dispute[edit]

The following has been copied to the Article talk page from Joe's talk page for public discussion on the topic.

Hi Thejoebloggsblog!

As in my edit summary, I've come over here so we can figure out some sort of compromise in regards to this issue. I've reverted the page to the state before the dispute, and would appreciate if you could refrain from further reverts in regards to this until we discuss the issue. My position is as follows:

  • The name was actually listed incorrectly - I was misled into beliving the teams were called the "Team of the Year". However, as the references use the latter title they must be titled appropriately. Text within the wiki should be changed however, to reflect the correct title.
  • The Modern All Australian side and the Sporting Life teams should be listed seperately as, despite being the same concept, they are recognised independently from one another - hence why the Carnivals and Modern AFL teams are recognised by the AFL, whilst the Sporting life teams are not. The Team selection undeniably happened, hence why it's listed in the first place, but they're seperate honours and should be represented as such.
  • Additionally, the Carnivals and Sporting Life teams overlap in years due to their nature as seperate entities.

Thus, I propose the following: During in-text mentions of the team we change the text to accurately reflect the actual title of selected team by Sporting Life. We leave the section seperate under the Individual Honours section. We make the addition of that photo you added to this section for much-needed media coverage in the latter part of the article.

If you have any disagreements, please feel free to counter-propose. I'm all ears if that's the case.

  • A lesser side point to end off - the nicknames listed were actually sourced in the main body of the article, so I've re-added them to the infobox. They're recognised by the club on its own website.

Looking forward to your response, and thanks! Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thejoebloggsblog: I'd appreciate if you could actually partake in discussion over this, rather than removing the content. I reverted the page to the state before the dispute - hence my request to not perform edits on the related sections until we come to a resolution. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thejoebloggsblog: Adding prose does not necessarily make you correct. The difference between the Sporting Life and official All Australian team is their association with the Governing Australian Football body. Sporting Life has no affilition with the body - simply providing their own 'experts' to come with their best of team. The Carnivals, and later, the AFL's all Australian teams have direct connection to the governing bodies of the organisations - the Carnival Team being selected by the State Body representatives, and the AFL being the governing body of the sport in the modern era. That's where this distinction between the two lies, and why representing them together is incorrect - they are not considered the same entity, hence why one is unofficial and the other is official.
I once again request you leave the page alone while we come to a compromise. The following is proposed display, with references removed to prevent clutter on your talk page. My proposed references would be the already pre-listed ones for the listed All Australian members, Sporting Life information supported by researh performed by Peter Argent, and then your linked AFL references for additional clarity.

Sporting Life's All Australian[edit]

Bob Quinn was named as captain in Sporting Life's All-Australian.

Sporting Life Magazine first pioneered the concept of a 'team of the year' in 1947, and would run each year until 1955. The AFL does not recognise the teams selected by Sporting Life.

All-Australian[edit]

The All-Australian team is considered a 'best-of' selection of players for each calender year, with each player represented in their team position. The team is selected by a panel of experts.

Interstate carnivals

Australian Football League

@Thejoebloggsblog: I'm only reverting the page to its prior state until we come to a consensus on display. Please continue this conversation here, Joe, this is my fourth attempt at contact.
Addressing what your edit summary said, yes, I have read those sources. I've even suggested their use above. However, Primary sources are no more important than Secondary - both have their advantages and weaknesses. Primary =/= good/bad, Secondary =/= good/bad. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @Thejoebloggsblog:, I think I've finalised a compromise display on my sandbox. I would appreciate if anyone willing to mediate, or Joe themself, would be able to review it for implementation.

I think it's fine to call it an "All-Australian" team if that's what Sporting Life called it. Saying "The AFL does not recognise the teams selected by Sporting Life" suffices to explain these teams are different from modern selections. If the team has since been called "Team of the Year", then something like "Sporting Life Magazine first pioneered the concept of an All-Australian 'team of the year' in 1947 that they would select each year until 1955." would be fine. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Firstly, thank-you for stepping in to help. I'm quite grateful. Secondly, I've changed that section of the sandbox to better reflect this approach. Thoughts?


Covid top-up list[edit]

I think this should be included in our players list section. It's likely to be something that's going to extend beyond the 2022 season. Other club pages have them. Maybe the list formatting could be better. Don't forget, West Coast have already had to dip into their Covid player pool. Hopefully it won't happen to Port, but in the event there is an outbreak at the club, people might want to know who our top-up players are.

Port Adelaide Football Club[edit]

It should be noted that the Club has 2 entities, the Magpies which are the highly successful SANFL side and the 25year old Power, the AFL Club it field's in that league, which makes it the youngest Club in the AFL and not the 5th oldest as stated in some articles 58.96.14.51 (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname - Mudholians[edit]

Mudholians is missing fron the list of nicknames - "During the 19th century, the club had nicknames including the Cockledivers, the Seaside Men, the Seasiders and the Magentas" Various newspaper articles from the 1880s and 1890s refer to the nickname - Mudholians example https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/208515435 It was still being used in 1897 - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/148074682 Also there are references to Portonians. 124.169.231.94 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Adelaide_Football_Club&oldid=1216009812"