Talk:Christine Sinclair/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Made some minor copyedit changes

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Two citations required; tags added to flag where

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   One request (see comments below)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Style of play section is skating on the border here, but I will pass it

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have appropriate licences

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   One template warning (see comments below)

Comments

1. Warning: Page using Template:Infobox football biography with unknown parameter "University". Resolve.
2. Born in Burnaby, British Columbia to Bill and Sandra Sinclair Add date of birth, with an appropriate reference. I know it is in the lead, but the lead and article should stand separate.
3. Similarly, her Order of Canada needs to be in the Honours section as well
4. And second worldwide in all-time international goals scored also needs to be somewhere in the article
5. Reformat FN 9, 12, 13 to match the rest of the article
6. FN 32 is dead
7. FN3 is dead (yes, I know)

All in all, very good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Walter Görlitz

Once again, this shows that reviewers have no clue and GA doesn't mean the article is good or bad. My verdict is that the article is good, and I am willing to pass it with a few changes. If you mean I am not an expert on soccer in Canada, then you are correct. My personal knowledge is about the Olympics. I saw the Canadian team in London in 2012 and Rio in 2016. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Why would you intentionally remove a correct link to instead point to a redirect? Per WP:NOTBROKEN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Why would you violate WP:REPEATLINK and link soccer twice in the top section of the article? It is only linked once; the lead doesn't count. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) This is some WP:REPEATLINK in the article, but I have not flagged them, as compliance with that section of the MOS is not required by GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Why would you add citation required rather than a dated {{citation needed}}? I thought the two were the same; the expectation is that they will soon be resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Why would you remove spacing? I didn't deliberately do that - it may have been the editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Hawkeye7: for reviewing the article. I made changes to #1 and 2 in your list - will continue later. Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I have addressed the items you've listed above + re-ran the link check. Let me know if anything else needs updating. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)