Talk:Tranmere Rovers F.C.

Tranmere Rovers F.C. 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
July 7, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
December 9, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
June 10, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merseyside Top‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tranmere Rovers F.C.. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook

It's obviously bizarre and anomalous in the extreme that Andy Cook does not currently have his own article, given that he is not only the team's leading scorer but the leading scorer in the entire league; that the team has now been promoted; and no fewer than 23 other players in the squad do have their own articles. The article Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) has apparently been deleted on the grounds that he fails the criteria at WP:NFOOTBALL in that he has not played in "a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues". Link to deletion discussion here. I've raised this at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus, as the admin who originally deleted the article. Other editors with an interest in this article may wish to contribute to the discussion, either there, or elsewhere if it proves necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Now raised at WP:DELREV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Tranmere Rovers F.C.

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. 48JCL TALK 02:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2011, and hasn't been reviewed since. Currently looks more like a Start-Class article than a GA. There are tags (mostly citation needed) EVERYWHERE, every section needs major work and cleanup. Article needs serious changes to remain a GA. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The tags were added by a single user over the span of about an hour, who has similarly spammed several other football articles. I'm not saying they're all unjustified, but there's certainly way more than needed. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the tags were all added by Untitled740, who also added the tags on the 3 football GAs delisted in the past month (Hull City, Middlesbrough, and Bristol Rovers, the latter two I nominated), as well as SSC Napoli, another GA that may potentially have problems. Agreeing with you, not saying that these tags are wrong, but they seem disruptive. Still saying that the article should be delisted unless work is done, but the tags on all five of these articles should be looked at as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many (most?) of the tags are of little value. Checking a couple, they aren't always true: with that said, some have a point. I'd suggest that a proper review of those tags would be a good (vital?) first step before making any decisions as to delisting, but maybe if nobody is forthcoming to do that review, the default should be to delist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:43, 1 June 2024 (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.