Talk:Christine Sinclair/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) 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
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * One template warning (see comments below)
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * One template warning (see comments below)
 * 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)

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 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)

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)