This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Lano and Woodley is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Can anyone please identify passages with the weasel words? There are a couple of dubious statements, but otherwise it seems fine. Comments from Rob.au would be good. Stu10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The article has been improved since I tagged it, but there's an obvious one still there: however supposedly according to the group boasting a total of 21 audience members throughout the 3 week run.
Reading it now, all that stands out is the complete lack of citations. There's nothing controversial and in need of removal, but there are a number of claims made that really should be referenced, especially considering Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Might need to replace the {{weasel}} tag with {{unreferenced}}.
I cut the tag. Saying a whole article "may be compromised by weasel words" is the most weasely statement imaginable. The article may have weasel words. Or not. Maybe. Stevage05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's fine. I've removed the unsubtantiated and unlikely claim, which let's face it, was probably just a self-deprecating joke by the pair. No need to get personal. –Rob.au11:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Settle down guys, the "weasel words" tag isn't a reflection on the subjects of the article... not sure what the drama is... there was some dodgy text and it has been dealt with... sheesh. –Rob.au17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstand Rob.au, I was suggesting that the actual tag, which is Wikipedia's responsibility, is weasley. The tag should be more definate - "this article contains" rather than "may be". I don't question your original motivation in tagging the article. Stu02:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
