Talk:Harold Oliver (Australian footballer)/GA3

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTE to Nominators/article-editors: etc... Please indicate on this page when you have adjusted/corrected content per this Review - however you wish to do that is fine. It helps me in my reviewing when I know changes have been made. Feel free to ping me from here when you have edited the article. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 3 February 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:
 * The only problem I found was a misspelled word: "...as the economy in Cornwall was waining" should be-> "...as the economy in Cornwall was waning"
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * It seems to me that the Lead section has an excessive amount of cites. The Lead is supposed to be a summary of sourced information that appears in the main part of the article. For instance, the parents are sourced in the lead, but not in the Early life section - this is opposite to the MOS.  Please adjust.
 * 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:
 * Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * The SANFL references are dead - the information on Oliver is still there but the URL has completely changed.  These cites will have to be updated. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the "Readthrough - some issues" section below. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See "References" section at the end. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - all looks well. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * 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:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit wars at this time. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 the images are fine, permissions look good. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The captions all look good with the possible exception of "Port Adelaide fans bought a 3.5hp Rover motorcycle for Oliver to enable him to make the trip back and forth to his farm". This motorcycle is not a photo of Oliver's actual motorcycle - please think about adjusting. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I had missed that this was corrected - it helps to have notices on the GA Review when a section's concerns have been corrected. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pending a final read-through and adjusting any concerns mentioned above, I am ready to finish this Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as the Refs #7/#9/#12 are dealt with and the lead is adjusted, I can finish up my GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See "References" section at the end of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as the Refs #7/#9/#12 are dealt with and the lead is adjusted, I can finish up my GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See "References" section at the end of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Readthrough - some issues

 * The lead section needs to be trimmed - Oliver's parentage does not establish his notability. And though I disagree with the number of cites in the lead, this is a matter of editorial preference not a matter of policy (see WP:LEADCITE).
 * An invalid SANFL link was still within the article in the External links section - I removed it because it was invalid and redundant (since the updated/correct link is already being used as a reference).
 * During this read through I realized that three user-submitted websites - Ref #7, Ref #9, Ref #12 - are being used as references. User-submitted or edited sources - such as Ancestry.Com or RootsWeb, etc. - have to be handled with care and rarely qualify as reliable sources.  I'm sorry but this information will have to be referenced from other sources or removed before this Review can be finished. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the parentage from the Lead section. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
Comment. I have re-read the article again and have now come to the conclusion that the lead section needs to be further recrafted. It states information and then it is sourced but I realized that this information does not appear within the main body of the article - per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." One way to handle this issue would be to simply swap out the unreferenced sentence in the body "After World War I Harold Oliver was close to retiring from league football playing only 1 game in 1919." and move the lead's sentence/references - "After being close to retiring from the game after World War I he returned to captain Port Adelaide to the 1921 SAFL premiership." - to where the unreferenced sentence was within the main body of the article.

Also, the Margarey Medal is mentioned in the Lead but is not mentioned within the main body of the article. That information will either have to be sourced and added to the main body or the Medal statement will have to be removed from the Lead. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adjusting the lead and the Margarey Medal information. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)