The content of this is small; they did the draw, and here are the results. The significance of the event isn't explained for a general audience (which the lede should do). The article actually is quite short, and feels even shorter because, perhaps, because significance isn't explained. I don't know enough to advise on how to cover this; it does seem one would have to carefully tread a fine line between explaining things and doing analysis (which violates our neutrality policy. Also, the headline and article don't have the same focus: the headline portrays the common grouping of England and Wales as of particular significance ("tell the most important and unique thing"), but then this aspect of the draw is not only missing from the lede, but also from the second paragraph which makes some customized observations about features of the draw; Wales is only mentioned in the body with the exhaustive lists in the third paragraph. Finally, without evidence of particular significance it's not clear this would really hold its freshness for a full three days; it's been (through whatever combination of happenstance) two days already.
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.
The content of this is small; they did the draw, and here are the results. The significance of the event isn't explained for a general audience (which the lede should do). The article actually is quite short, and feels even shorter because, perhaps, because significance isn't explained. I don't know enough to advise on how to cover this; it does seem one would have to carefully tread a fine line between explaining things and doing analysis (which violates our neutrality policy. Also, the headline and article don't have the same focus: the headline portrays the common grouping of England and Wales as of particular significance ("tell the most important and unique thing"), but then this aspect of the draw is not only missing from the lede, but also from the second paragraph which makes some customized observations about features of the draw; Wales is only mentioned in the body with the exhaustive lists in the third paragraph. Finally, without evidence of particular significance it's not clear this would really hold its freshness for a full three days; it's been (through whatever combination of happenstance) two days already.
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.
I didn't find a bunch of things in the sources; a reviewer doesn't have to look any further than the sources (barring maybe an occasional sanity check), and arguably shouldn't look any further, but I poked around a bit. Reminder: just because Wikipedia says something doesn't make it true, and certainly doesn't help at all in verifying that it's true. Usually, things that Wikipedia says cannot be verified easily by looking at sources provided by Wikiepdia, because either it doesn't provide specific sources for particular facts, or if it does the facts aren't easy to find in those sources (and may, in fact, not be in those sources at all). When everything else about this had been verified, I spent a great deal of time and effort (entirely voluntarily, of course) verifying "The quadrennial football tournament of Europe is scheduled to start in June 2016, the matches to be played in ten French cities." Please do provide notes on where to find stuff like that. Of the elements of that sentence, the most difficult thing to verify was actually the part about it being quadrennial, which even the tournament site doesn't bother to say because, presumably, they assume everyone already knows.
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.
I didn't find a bunch of things in the sources; a reviewer doesn't have to look any further than the sources (barring maybe an occasional sanity check), and arguably shouldn't look any further, but I poked around a bit. Reminder: just because Wikipedia says something doesn't make it true, and certainly doesn't help at all in verifying that it's true. Usually, things that Wikipedia says cannot be verified easily by looking at sources provided by Wikiepdia, because either it doesn't provide specific sources for particular facts, or if it does the facts aren't easy to find in those sources (and may, in fact, not be in those sources at all). When everything else about this had been verified, I spent a great deal of time and effort (entirely voluntarily, of course) verifying "The quadrennial football tournament of Europe is scheduled to start in June 2016, the matches to be played in ten French cities." Please do provide notes on where to find stuff like that. Of the elements of that sentence, the most difficult thing to verify was actually the part about it being quadrennial, which even the tournament site doesn't bother to say because, presumably, they assume everyone already knows.
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.
Olympics, Cricket WC, FIFA WC, Copa America, Euro... most of these events are once in four years. Well, point taken. I will provide notes. (I am fairly strong memory for football :P) 14.139.242.195 (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I noticed the World Cup is also once every four years whilst verifying that Germany is the current World Cup champion (knowing they won it last year isn't enough, you see, you also have to know that's the most recent one; that's another one I didn't find in the cited sources). It's exactly because "everybody" knows this sort of thing that it's a bit difficult to find a trust-worthy source bothering to say it. Though the bits about June and ten cities are less common knowledge, and I didn't find those in the cited sources either. --Pi zero (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
