Talk:Australian sport may be on the cusp of change

Review of revision 915379 [Failed]

Revision 915379 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: reads like a press release, external (non-wp) links in text boday 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). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: reads like a press release, external (non-wp) links in text boday 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]

Revision 915435 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed 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). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed 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

This should have been failed a second time - not passed.

1. The title is in no way reflected within the content
2. This, "Other commentators have welcomed the recommendations, challenging to beliefs that Australians benefit from high performing athletes." is incomprehensible nonsense
3. There's a numbered list in the middle of it that's meaningless
4. The sources do not have dates formatted correctly
5. 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)