Talk:Holly Lincoln-Smith

Latest comment: 10 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleHolly Lincoln-Smith was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed
June 11, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 10, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that as a 12-year-old, Australian water polo player Holly Lincoln-Smith (pictured) saved the life of another swimmer in the middle of a race, then went on to finish 27th out of 40?
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holly Lincoln-Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:51, 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

Result edit

Result Notes
  Pass Looks good.

Discussion edit

Sorry for the delay on this one, I previously did this a month ago, but lost the record and completely forgot I did not post a full review. As my previous questions were answered about the personal information I see no problem in passing it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 5 June 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.

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Holly Lincoln-Smith. 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) 04:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment edit

Holly Lincoln-Smith 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: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Article listed for GA 11 years. Article is not up to date. Missing information from career (if any) post 2012. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

LibStar, I see you have worked on the article. Do you feel that it now meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, it is still missing coverage of her career between 2012 and 2016 Olympics. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 11 June 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.