Talk:Rowena Webster

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Buidhe in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleRowena Webster was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 2, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Australian Stingers Ashleigh Southern, Glencora Ralph, Zoe Arancini, Rowena Webster and Nicola Zagame are five of seventeen water polo players trying to make the 2012 Summer Olympics squad?
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) No problems.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) No problems.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) No problems.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) No problems.   Pass
    (c) (original research) No problems.'   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) No problems.   Pass
    (b) (focused) No problems.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    No problems.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No problems.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No problems.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No problems.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass Looks good.

Discussion

edit

No real problems jump out at me. Still not sure why the weight is included, but then again I am not particularly well versed in water polo. No issues with quotes or any weird readings, so I'm going to pass this. Its very textbook like. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Additional Notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rowena Webster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Outstanding cn tags are among the issues with this article. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Last listed 11 years ago. Contains quite a few uncited statements and has a significant gap of career detail from 2014 to present except for the Tokyo Olympics. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.