Talk:Caloundra defeat Nambour 24-10 in week seven of Sunshine Coast Rugby Union

Notes

SCRU week 7
Caloundra vs. Nambour

                 First Second
      Caloundra       |
tries              1  |  1
convertions           |  1
Penalty goals         |  2
Drop goals            |

     Nambour          |
tries                 |  1
convertions           |  1
Penalty goals      1  |     
Drop goals            |

Half time score - Caloundra 11 Nambour 3
Fulltime score  - Caloundra 24 Nambour 10

Other results https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=388208171294364&id=152478778200639 --RockerballAustralia c 10:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The above notes are a transcription of hand written notes made by myself. --RockerballAustralia c 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1892805 [Not ready]

Revision 1892805 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Looking at the journalist notes, they have zero context. The notes should really provide an idea if the reporter was there, and say how they got this information. (Was this copied from the scoreboard, given to the reporter following the game by scorekeepers, based on own observations of the game?) Why is other results repeated twice in the article? Things look really, really cluttered with a box to the left, a box to the right, images in the center, one sentence above and a sentence below. The clutter is making it hard to process what information is what, and to understand why information is being duplicated. 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 1892805 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Looking at the journalist notes, they have zero context. The notes should really provide an idea if the reporter was there, and say how they got this information. (Was this copied from the scoreboard, given to the reporter following the game by scorekeepers, based on own observations of the game?) Why is other results repeated twice in the article? Things look really, really cluttered with a box to the left, a box to the right, images in the center, one sentence above and a sentence below. The clutter is making it hard to process what information is what, and to understand why information is being duplicated. 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.

Review of revision 1894791 [Passed]

Revision 1894791 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had the most awful time trying to verify that this keeps Caloundra in the top four. I went through the whole table twice; the first time put them in fifth, and the second time, tied for second. I'd used a technique the second time likely to have fewer errors, so I called it good enough. 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 1894791 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had the most awful time trying to verify that this keeps Caloundra in the top four. I went through the whole table twice; the first time put them in fifth, and the second time, tied for second. I'd used a technique the second time likely to have fewer errors, so I called it good enough. 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.