Talk:Victoria Brown (water polo)

Latest comment: 9 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Good articleVictoria Brown (water polo) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 13, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 7, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the parents of Australian national team water polo player Victoria Brown believed that she would be an Olympian in an equestrian event?
Current status: Good article

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victoria Brown (water polo)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Review edit

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Some word choice issues. 'As a youngster'... etc   Pass
    (b) (MoS) No problems.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) No concerns.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) No problems.   Pass
    (c) (original research) No concerns.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Its on topic.   Pass
    (b) (focused) As much as needed.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Aside from the second quote with 'the Italian's bite' it looks good. I'll remove that, its taken out of context and could be implied negatively.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No edit wars.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Nice pictures!   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All good.   Pass

Result edit

Result Notes
  Pass Aside from that minor issue, no concerns. I'll pass it.

Discussion edit

I looked at this article weeks ago, but had refrained from posting it up. I wasn't originally going to edit the content, but I think one little edit is fine. Nothing is preventing it from passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Additional Notes edit

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Information added to article edit

This edit included some potentially useful information but it wasn't sourced and there were errors. Any help in finding sources and improving the article to include this new information would be much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Update edit

This article finish in 2012 prior to Olympic Games. Since is a GD, should be updated ASAP. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victoria Brown (water polo). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria Brown (water polo). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment edit

Victoria Brown (water polo) edit

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article was made a GA in 2012, whilst it would be a GA then, 11 years later it fails criteria 2 as not all information is verifiable and it doesn't reflect anything of her career post 2012. Her "current work" as of 2012 is likely to be out of date. At age 37, she is likely to have retired from elite and club level. For example, she is not listed on the Victoria club 2023 roster: https://vicphoenixwaterpolo.com/victorian-awl-womens-squad/ (note the team she played for Victorian Tigers has since been renamed). LibStar (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't see any reason why the information is not verifiable; the article is fully referenced.
  • The Victorian Tigers left the National Women’s Water Polo League after the 2013 season. There was no Victorian team in the league from 2017 to 2021. The Victorian Phoenix was created in 2022.
  • There is no information online about her career after 2013 and she is presumed to have retired. If it is really necessary we can cheat and contact her directly but the information gathered may not be able to be used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    So do you believe this is still a GA? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.