Talk:Toads defeat University in round seven of Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season

OR

--RockerballAustralia c 10:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted below the half time score should be Toads 33, Uni 5. There appears to have been a second half penalty goal scored by Toads that was not noted down by the reporter at the time. --RockerballAustralia c 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2701850 [Not ready]

Revision 2701850 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There are two discrepancies in the Toads' score. The score reported here, 47, seems to be off by one from the individual goals reported, as is the first-half score: three converted tries, two penalty goals, and an unconverted try should be 32, not 33, and then two converted tries in the second half would be 46. The fb page says 49. Can you account for these discrepancies? If the one point were a mistake, and there were an unreported penalty goal somewhere, that would add up, but that's just speculation on my part; I as reviewer have no way to fix the problem. I'm not entirely happy, still, with the phrasing of the bit about the controversial calls. We should be stating things up front rather than being nonspecific about who said what. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 2701850 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There are two discrepancies in the Toads' score. The score reported here, 47, seems to be off by one from the individual goals reported, as is the first-half score: three converted tries, two penalty goals, and an unconverted try should be 32, not 33, and then two converted tries in the second half would be 46. The fb page says 49. Can you account for these discrepancies? If the one point were a mistake, and there were an unreported penalty goal somewhere, that would add up, but that's just speculation on my part; I as reviewer have no way to fix the problem. I'm not entirely happy, still, with the phrasing of the bit about the controversial calls. We should be stating things up front rather than being nonspecific about who said what. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Your first half maths is correct in arriving at 32. The mistake I made was the unconverted try. I attributed six points instead of five.

As for the missing penalty goal, my initial thought is that the official score is counting a missed shot. If there was another scored I'm not sure where to place it in my notes and the article.

That bit about the ref was part my observation part observation of people near me. I'd be happy to accept a complete rewrite of that rewrite of that paragraph to just mentioning what the scoring action was.--RockerballAustralia c 16:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2701968 [Passed]

Revision 2701968 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Eliminating the mention of controversy is certainly the simplest solution. It ought to be possible to handle such a thing neutrally without omitting it altogether. Worth some thought for future occasions, perhaps. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2701968 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Eliminating the mention of controversy is certainly the simplest solution. It ought to be possible to handle such a thing neutrally without omitting it altogether. Worth some thought for future occasions, perhaps. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.