Talk:Lano and Woodley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Portal	Lano and Woodley is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Weasel words

Can anyone please identify passages with the weasel words? There are a couple of dubious statements, but otherwise it seems fine. Comments from Rob.au would be good. Stu 10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has been improved since I tagged it, but there's an obvious one still there: however supposedly according to the group boasting a total of 21 audience members throughout the 3 week run.

Reading it now, all that stands out is the complete lack of citations. There's nothing controversial and in need of removal, but there are a number of claims made that really should be referenced, especially considering Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Might need to replace the {{weasel}} tag with {{unreferenced}}.

–Rob.au 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut the tag. Saying a whole article "may be compromised by weasel words" is the most weasely statement imaginable. The article may have weasel words. Or not. Maybe. Stevage 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I've removed the unsubtantiated and unlikely claim, which let's face it, was probably just a self-deprecating joke by the pair. No need to get personal. –Rob.au 11:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call Stevage; the weasel words statement is indeed weasley! Stu 01:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Settle down guys, the "weasel words" tag isn't a reflection on the subjects of the article... not sure what the drama is... there was some dodgy text and it has been dealt with... sheesh. –Rob.au 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Rob.au, I was suggesting that the actual tag, which is Wikipedia's responsibility, is weasley. The tag should be more definate - "this article contains" rather than "may be". I don't question your original motivation in tagging the article. Stu 02:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)