Australian rules football
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Empole1 appears to have gone inactive without fully resolving the issues.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 13:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
GA from 2021. which is definitely very recent, but there looks to be quite a lot of uncited statements including entire uncited paragraphs. So I feel that this needs to be reassessed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and trout the reviewer for passing it in the first place. –
Tera
tix
₵ 10:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Technically it met the GA criteria then, but not now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- De-list way too much unsourced content, particularly in the rules section, but also multiple sentences elsewhere. Most of these issues were there in the 2021 version that passed GA, which in my opinion was an incorrect outcome, as this looks to fail Wikipedia:Good article criteria 2b/2c (all sourced inline and no own research, the rules specifically look like some OR). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist does not meet the current criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I was tagged into here as the Wikipedian who initially nominated the article for GA. This was well timed given I came back to Wikipedia for the first time in a while only a couple of days ago!
- I'm more than happy to go through and resolve these issues if possible! From what I gather from the comments from others and my own quick run through, the majority of issues lie in the referencing of the various statements (particularly rules, but generally article-wide.) I'll make a start on this now, but I'd appreciate a more detailed list of focus areas if someone was willing to create one.
- Thanks for letting me know either way, hopefully I'll be able to get the article up to snuff!
- Empole1 ( talk) 11:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Australian rules football
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Empole1 appears to have gone inactive without fully resolving the issues.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 13:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
GA from 2021. which is definitely very recent, but there looks to be quite a lot of uncited statements including entire uncited paragraphs. So I feel that this needs to be reassessed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and trout the reviewer for passing it in the first place. –
Tera
tix
₵ 10:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Technically it met the GA criteria then, but not now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- De-list way too much unsourced content, particularly in the rules section, but also multiple sentences elsewhere. Most of these issues were there in the 2021 version that passed GA, which in my opinion was an incorrect outcome, as this looks to fail Wikipedia:Good article criteria 2b/2c (all sourced inline and no own research, the rules specifically look like some OR). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist does not meet the current criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I was tagged into here as the Wikipedian who initially nominated the article for GA. This was well timed given I came back to Wikipedia for the first time in a while only a couple of days ago!
- I'm more than happy to go through and resolve these issues if possible! From what I gather from the comments from others and my own quick run through, the majority of issues lie in the referencing of the various statements (particularly rules, but generally article-wide.) I'll make a start on this now, but I'd appreciate a more detailed list of focus areas if someone was willing to create one.
- Thanks for letting me know either way, hopefully I'll be able to get the article up to snuff!
- Empole1 ( talk) 11:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.