Talk:Australian sport may be on the cusp of change
Review of revision 915379 [Failed]
edit  |
Revision 915379 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The style's a bit choppy IMO. Fix it and i'll re-review--RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 915379 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The style's a bit choppy IMO. Fix it and i'll re-review--RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
- Thanks for the review.. I think I'm going to need a thick skin for this :) But I agree - it was choppy. Have deleted most of the bookmarks, leaving it to the original source.. What you think now? Leighblackall (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Review of revision 915435 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 915435 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 915435 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Review - should have failed again
editThis should have been failed a second time - not passed.
- The title is in no way reflected within the content
- This, "Other commentators have welcomed the recommendations, challenging to beliefs that Australians benefit from high performing athletes." is incomprehensible nonsense
- There's a numbered list in the middle of it that's meaningless
- The sources do not have dates formatted correctly
- The sources are not sorted newest->oldest
After reading it, I have zero idea what the Crawford report is/was, why it was commissioned, or - pretty much - any clue what the hell this is about. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Brian, as encouraging as always. I'll have a crack at addressing your issues in the next 12 hours if no one else has before then. Leighblackall (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This wasn't directed at you, but at those doing reviews. There's the essay, WN:ARTICLE which might help; also, the link from the more-current welcome template for a Wikipedia people 'quick-start'. IIRC you're account is old enough you don't have that (I will fix). --Brian McNeil / talk 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, this should have undergone some cleanup and formatting changes per WN:SG before publishing. Brian points out most of the difficulties with the article - it needs more context to make it clear for an international audience. Right now it's not very clear what exactly the report is about. Also - the use of "our" should be avoided since we're an international news agency, not based in any particular country. I'll see if I can help correct the article when I get a chance. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Changes made based on Brians numbered list. What need to happen now to update the page? Leighblackall (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)