Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Netball: Putting comment back after looking at examples |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Note: please limit discussion here to whether the article currently meets the [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|good article criteria]]. Other related disputes concerning actions taken by editors in the previous reviews, etc, will be decided elsewhere. [[User:Chester Markel|Chester Markel]] ([[User talk:Chester Markel|talk]]) 04:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
Note: please limit discussion here to whether the article currently meets the [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|good article criteria]]. Other related disputes concerning actions taken by editors in the previous reviews, etc, will be decided elsewhere. [[User:Chester Markel|Chester Markel]] ([[User talk:Chester Markel|talk]]) 04:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep:''' I oppose reassessment. The article is, on the whole, well written. It is factually accurate and verifiable. (In fact, one of the major criticisms of the article in some places is that it has too many citations and that every sentence is cited.) The article is broad in its coverage: Rules, history of the game, variants, major competitions, how the game is around the world, demographic information, administration of the game. Not sure what is left out that isn't broad. The article is stable, except for ongoing problems as a result of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket|a problem reviewer who has intentionally created problems]]. The article is neutral. The article is appropiately illustrated by images. If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, I will be happy to work with other contributors to this article to make those changes. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 04:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:57, 7 May 2011
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Talk:Netball/GA1 ended in an acrimonious dispute between Racepacket, and LauraHale, amongst others. Subsequent to the withdrawal of the good article nomination by LauraHale, vigorously contested by Racepacket as the reviewer [1], and resulting in page protection, Talk:Netball/GA2 was created, and passed without commentary by any editor, less than 24 hours later. Racepacket and other a few other editors dispute the propriety of this process and the merits of the decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop and other fora. A reassessment is desirable to aid the resolution of a portion of the dispute in a non-disruptive manner by determining the status of the article, one way or the other. Chester Markel (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: please limit discussion here to whether the article currently meets the good article criteria. Other related disputes concerning actions taken by editors in the previous reviews, etc, will be decided elsewhere. Chester Markel (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I oppose reassessment. The article is, on the whole, well written. It is factually accurate and verifiable. (In fact, one of the major criticisms of the article in some places is that it has too many citations and that every sentence is cited.) The article is broad in its coverage: Rules, history of the game, variants, major competitions, how the game is around the world, demographic information, administration of the game. Not sure what is left out that isn't broad. The article is stable, except for ongoing problems as a result of a problem reviewer who has intentionally created problems. The article is neutral. The article is appropiately illustrated by images. If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, I will be happy to work with other contributors to this article to make those changes. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)