Talk:The Wiggles Pty Ltd

"Cook's wife made their first costumes."

The above sentence, from the "Business philosophy" section, is the first reference to Cook in this article; further identification is needed. "Founding member Murray Cook's wife made their first costumes" strikes me as imprecise. "Their first costumes were made by the wife of founding member Murray Cook" strikes me as unwieldy. "The wife of founding member Murray Cook made their first costumes" might be a reasonable compromise. ForDorothy (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Enjoyed the article. ForDorothy (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I basically stole that line from the main article, and it wasn't the first reference to Murray there, so I didn't catch it here. If anyone could go through this article and fix similar errors if they exist, that would be great. Thanks for the catch; it's fixed now. And I really wanna know which Dorothy you're for; I see from your user and talk pages that you edit a lot of opera articles, so I doubt that you're for The Dinosaur, although that would be really cool if you were. Tee hee hee hee! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal structure of company before 2005

What was their business structure before 2006? You didn't address this point when I first asked, instead only addressing the point clumped in with it. That's what held me up initially; a busy life held me up since, thus the perpetually pending GAN. Who were the cheques for the TV show made out to? What company name appeared in the credits alongside Channel 7, before this one? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, Zan, and I totally understand about having a busy life, there really isn't any information about this out there. The Wiggles were very private about their business practices before they were consolidated in 2006, when they were forced to give out more information about their structure and such. Anthony talked about it in his book because, I think, he was in a self-help mood, which I was happy about, since it inspired this article. I don't know what else to say; sorry I'm not any more helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Making space for sources I come across as I'm revamping the main article.

BRW [1] More about brand and the reaction to both shake-ups. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The Wiggles Pty Ltd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Speedy keep, GAR rationale badly misunderstands the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of the material in the lead sentence is uncited. failing GA criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223, GA criterion 2B states that reliable sources should be cited inline, but the MOS:LEADCITE policy states (2nd paragraph):

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation or it may be removed. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

Nothing in this article's lead can't be found in its body and no statements in the lead is challenged or likely to be challenged. There's one direct quote that is cited. Finally, the subjects and claims made in the lead aren't controversial or complex. Consequently, the lead doesn't fail the GA criteria. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this interpretation of policy. Reviewing the lede section -- not a sentence, as the nomination claims -- there's nothing that isn't echoed and expanded on later in the article. Literally, similar words recur in the lede and body (independent, consensus, richest, difficulty/difficult, partnered, recession.) All you need is a CTRL+F search of the page, you don't even need to read it.

The exception is the Anthony Field quote, which appropriately has a citation.

I've looked at the nominator's talk page. Your welcome message is January 4, and since then you've closed GARs before they should be closed, asked for GARs of articles that aren't GAs, etc.

As has been expressed by Hog Farm on your talk page, GARs are not for minor issues, and even if they were, there are no issues in the lede.

This is a quick close, if that's even a term in GARs. If there are legitimate issues with this article that I haven't noticed, you're welcome to open a new GAR, but I see no obvious issue, and your initial rationale is flawed. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.