Talk:United Kingdom national football team/GA2
I am starting a reassessment of this article because it has substantially changed since it was reviewed in February 2010. Soon after this last review, much of the content was split out into the Great Britain Olympic football team article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Verifiable: the first main section (background/history) is not that well referenced; the discussion about the greater prospects (theoretically) of a UK team would be OR in my opinion, unless it is sourced. The Universiade section is unreferenced.
- Illustrated: The only image in the article is an illustration of kit colours used in two matches.
- Jmorrison230582, you never completed this individual GA reassessment, which you opened nearly two years ago. As you pointed out at the time, there were issues with verifiability (all of which seem to be true today, and I would add to your points that two of the four Olympics paragraphs are unsourced as well), and it may not be sufficiently broad in its coverage (I don't know the subject matter well enough to render an opinion).
- If you didn't contact the various WikiProjects at the time, or the active editors, we could do so now to see whether anyone is interested in addressing the issues you've raised. If no one is willing or able to fix them in a reasonable period of time, say a week or two, then the thing to do, regretfully, is to delist the article. If editors do start working on the article, then we keep this open while they work, and the article will hopefully be restored to the point that it fulfills the GA criteria. Thanks for your response. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am resuming this reassessment with Jmorrison230582's concurrence, and have notified the relevant WikiProjects. The article needs to be improved in the areas listed above to the point that it meets the standards given in the GA criteria. A major issue is verifiability: the lack of inline source citations for a significant proportion of the article.
The typical "hold" time while waiting for such improvements is seven days; if work is underway at that time, I will naturally extend that time so long as the article is actively being worked on. I hope someone takes this on. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It has been over seven days, and there have been no edits to the article; neither has there been any expression of interest in working on the article to address issues raised in this reassessment. I am therefore closing is as "delisted" as a Good Article. Should this issues be addressed in future, and the article improved so it meets the GA criteria as they currently stand, it can always be nominated again. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)