Talk:British boxer Amir Khan receives ban for doping

Review of revision 4719425 [Not ready]

Revision 4719425 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: The lead of the artice must state the when of the event. Also, please consider adding some links to relevant pages on Wikinews and Wikipedia. Comments by reviewer: @BoracicEagle9. 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 4719425 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: The lead of the artice must state the when of the event. Also, please consider adding some links to relevant pages on Wikinews and Wikipedia. Comments by reviewer: @BoracicEagle9. 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.

Question:

I don't quite understand. If Khan is retired and not intending on competing why is a ban necessary and/or newsworthy? SVTCobra 10:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe its relevant because Khan has a large following and is an influential figure. Him being banned also serves as a reminder that sportspersons will be held accountable for doping, whether they are still competing or not. BoracicEagle9 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@BoracicEagle9: Sorry, another thing: I think it would be good to work in some details of what UKAD is (which would require another source, of course), as at the moment it seems from the article it is a nonprofit with no clear authority, but it is actually an independent government agency. Heavy Water (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4719596 [Not ready]

Revision 4719596 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Uh...the when of the focal event still is not stated. Comments by reviewer: @BoracicEagle9. 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 4719596 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Uh...the when of the focal event still is not stated. Comments by reviewer: @BoracicEagle9. 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.

Review of revision 4720191 [Passed]

Revision 4720191 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Pretty great for a first article! Watch out for run-on sentences and using 'that' when it is not needed. (It's something I am prone to do, also.) The bit about "sad entry" was removed due to our WN:NPOV policy. There was only one minor factual correction I had to make. Cheers, 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 4720191 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Pretty great for a first article! Watch out for run-on sentences and using 'that' when it is not needed. (It's something I am prone to do, also.) The bit about "sad entry" was removed due to our WN:NPOV policy. There was only one minor factual correction I had to make. Cheers, 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.