Talk:Melbourne Storm/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

Symbol unsupport vote.svg To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of March 3, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    In 2007 the Storm avenged for their heartbreaking end to the 2006 campaign not neutral encyclopaedic language. There are other such weasel words and phrases throughout.
    Statistics and records summary, WP:MoS deprecates lists in articles. This would best summarised in prose.
    Does News Limited still own the club? I think some severe updating of the article may be needed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I fixed three dead links, and removed one EL as it redirected to the other.
    Existing references seem reliable enough
    Assume good faith for off-line sources.
    I have placed citation needed tags where statements are unsupported. There are also tags un-addressed from April 2009.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    May need updating
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Some weasel phrases and words.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, a fair bit of work needed to bring this back to current GA status. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Although some edits have been made no substantial progress has been made so I am delisting this article. It can be re-nominated back at WP:GAN when it is in good shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)