Wikipedia articles often have a lot of tags to indicate problems on an article. Some of these appear at the top of an article. Some of these appear at the top of a section of an article. Some of these appear inline in the text. They cover things like neutrality, verification, timeliness of the article, wording, content problems, etc. I wanted to know what some of the issues were with Australian women’s sport articles on English Wikipedia so I got a list of commonly used templates used to tag problems in articles, put them into a few categories, and then counted the number of occurrences of these templates by categories in 1,355 articles about Australian women’s sport using a program.
The following templates were the ones used in this examination with the category they were included in preceding them: Attribution – According to whom, Attribution – Attribution needed, Attribution – By whom, Attribution – Weasel-inline, Attribution – Which, Attribution – Who, Citation – Better source, Citation – Citation needed, Citation – Citation needed (lead), Citation – Citation needed span, Citation – Citation style, Citation – Cite checkaa, Citation – Cite quote, Citation – Clarify, Citation – Cn, Citation – Examples, Citation – Fact, Citation – Failed verification, Citation – Full, Citation – List fact, Citation – No footnotes, Citation – Primary source-inline, Citation – Reference necessary, Citation – Refimprove, Citation – Request quotation, Citation – Retracted, Citation – Third-party-inline, Citation – Unreferenced, Content – confusing, Content – contradict, Content – contradiction-inline, Content – contradict-other, Content – contradict-other-multiple, Content – Definition, Content – Dubious, Content – expand acronym, Content – incoherent, Content – inconsistent, Content – misleading, Content – multiple issues, Content – Nonspecific, Content – Peacock term, Content – POV-statement, Content – Quantify, Content – Technical-statement, Content – Time fact, Content – unclear date, Content – Undue-inline, Content – Vague, Content – Weasel-inline, Content – When, Content – Who, Content – Whom, Content – Whom?, Content – Contradict-inline, Content – Contradiction-inline, Content – Disputed-inline, Content – Dubious, Content – Examples, Content – Inconsistent, Content – List fact, Content – Lopsided, Content – MIR, Content – POV-statement, Date and place – Clarify timeframe, Date and place – clarify timeframe, Date and place – current, Date and place – Current disaster, Date and place – Current person, Date and place – Current spaceflight, Date and place – Current sport, Date and place – Current sport-related, Date and place – Current sports transaction, Date and place – Current tornado outbreak, Date and place – Current tropical cyclone, Date and place – out of date, Date and place – Recent death, Date and place – Recent death presumed, Date and place – recently revised, Date and place – time-context, Date and place – update, Date and place – Update after, Date and place – Update-small, Date and place – When, Date and place – Where, Date and place – Year needed, Disputes – autobiography, Disputes – cherry picked, Disputes – clarify, Disputes – coat rack, Disputes – COI, Disputes – Disputed, Disputes – Disputed tag, Disputes – Disputed title, Disputes – Disputed-inline, Disputes – disputed-section, Disputes – Dubious, Disputes – editorializing, Disputes – geographical imbalance, Disputes – globalize, Disputes – List fact, Disputes – Lopsided, Disputes – peacock, Disputes – POV, Disputes – POV-check, Disputes – POV-check, Disputes – POV-lead, Disputes – POV-map, Disputes – POV-section, Disputes – POV-statement, Disputes – POV-title, Disputes – recentism, Disputes – Systemic bias, Disputes – unbalanced, Disputes – Under discussion, Disputes – Under discussion-inline, Disputes – undue, Disputes – undue-inline, Disputes – weasel, Disputes – when, Disputes – who, Disputes – whom?, Expansion requests – biblio, Expansion requests – cleanup-biography, Expansion requests – expand further, Expansion requests – expand section, Expansion requests – expand section, Expansion requests – expand-section, Expansion requests – formula missing descriptions, Expansion requests – histinfo, Expansion requests – ISBN, Expansion requests – kmposts, Expansion requests – Lacking overview, Expansion requests – mileposts, Expansion requests – missing information, Incomplete – Author incomplete, Incomplete – Author missing, Incomplete – Chronology citation needed, Incomplete – Date missing, Incomplete – Dead link, Incomplete – Full, Incomplete – ISBN missing, Incomplete – Page needed, Incomplete – Publisher missing, Incomplete – Season needed, Incomplete – Title incomplete, Incomplete – Volume needed, Incomplete – Year missing, Verification – Better source, Verification – By whom, Verification – Dead link, Verification – Failed verification, Verification – Request quotation, Verification – Self-published inline, Verification – Self-published source, Verification – Source need translation, Verification – Verify credibility, Verification – Verify source, Wikification – Disambiguation needed, Wikification – Pronunciation needed, Wording – Ambiguous, Wording – Awkward, Wording – Buzz, Wording – Clarify, Wording – Definition, Wording – Elucidate, Wording – Expand acronym, Wording – Technical-statement, Wording – Vague, and Wording – Why.
This list is by no means complete but it is reasonably decent list of templates to use to check total problems. I’ve manually checked these as I modified the program to do this, and my programming skills result in the occasional false positives.
The biggest problems? Citations with 202 tags used across all articles. This is followed verification with 128 tags used across all articles and 123 for incomplete. This is followed up with 10 content tags, 5 date and time tags, 4 wording tags and 1 attribution tag. There are 12 articles with 13 or more points. Half of these are for Canberra based players and teams, including Hannah Bowley, Michelle Cosier, Mikaela Dombkins, Michelle Cosier, Marianna Tolo. The reason they appear on the list is they cited the Canberra Times, which re-organised their website, broke almost all its links and the Wikipedia pages linking to them were updated to reflect this. Of the other articles, the articles about Lauren Burns and Laura Robson also have link rot problems. In conrast, the articles about Irena Janjic, Giaan Rooney and Allana Slater are tagged as needing citations. Jenny Williams in contrast has a whole array of issues that tags suggest need fixing.
So on the whole, the major issues with Australia women’s sport articles on Wikipedia are link rot to sources and articles not being fully sources.