Talk:Australian sport may be on the cusp of change

Review of revision 915379 [Failed]

 * 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 - 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)

✅ Changes made based on Brians numbered list. What need to happen now to update the page? Leighblackall (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)