Talk:Jordan Eberle

Jordan Eberle 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
Date	Process	Result
January 24, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
February 6, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Canada: Saskatchewan / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan Eberle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
~~Reference 17 needs to be properly formatted. Ref. 32 needs an accessdate. Also, Ref. 42 is a dead link.~~

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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do! If the concerns above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and taken care of those problems with the references. Thanks for the review! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome for it, just doing my part. Thank you to Orlandkurtenbach for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAR review[edit]

Jordan Eberle[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) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been maintained to standards after the 2010 GA, and does not meet the broadness criterion for his career afterwards. Has been marked for possible reassessment since 2021. Not quite a GA issue, but the article is full of WP:Proseline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist on lack of detail since 2011. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I say that proseline falls under 1a. Steelkamp (talk) 14:13, 6 February 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.

Femke, I believe I have brought this article back up to GA condition. Could you possibly re-review it? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for your work! Unfortunately I don't have the time to review. If you believe it meets the criteria, you can nominate the article at WP:GAN. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]