Talk:Justin Clarke

Feedback for JayKayWags
A couple of disclaimers: First, I'm not claiming to be the definitive Wikipedian voice on what this article should or should not contain; these are my own views with which other editors may disagree. Second, I'm aiming to address the "big picture" of the article in these comments; I'm not going to address every minor error unless it's present often enough to amount to a significant overall problem.

Lead: Largely has a pleasing balance between the different aspects of Clarke's life, although perhaps a little more could be said about his AFL career, since that is where the bulk of his notability stems from.

Images: I think the article has a good range of images considering the very limited number of free pictures of AFL players available. I made a of the Brisbane–Sydney photograph which you may or may not prefer.

Referencing:
 * There are quite a few citations missing details of their authors and publication dates, even when this information is still available at the original source.
 * A website's URL is not always its name (e.g. The Australian not www.theaustralian.com.au)
 * When citing videos, it's helpful to specify the precise timestamp in the video where the relevant claim in the article is supported. You can use Template:Cite AV Media for this purpose, although you might need to briefly dip into the source editor instead of the visual editor.
 * Avoid interpreting the contents of videos to reach conclusions that are not explicitly stated. For example, the 2014 section reads:
 * In the round 16 game against Richmond, Clarke was selected to mark two-time Coleman medalist Jack Riewoldt
 * The video provided displays lots of examples of Clarke opposing Riewoldt, but it never actually states Clarke was "selected to mark" him, nor that Riewoldt was a Coleman Medallist.


 * Be cautious about solely relying on databases like AFL Tables to highlight particular statistics. This technique can sometimes create implications that are not supported by the original source. For example, the 2013 section mentions:
 * In his third game, Clarke took 12 marks while obtaining what would become his career-high disposal count of 22.
 * Though these statistics are accurate to the source, the decision to highlight these positive ones gives the impression Clarke had a great match. However, I could write a different – but just as accurate – sentence, that creates a very different impression:
 * In his third game, Clarke laid a team- and career-low zero tackles, conceded two free kicks to the opposition without winning any of his own, and did not assist or score any goals or behinds.
 * These statistics are also completely accurate, but I've singled out the negative ones to create a poor impression of Clarke's performance. Since it's so easy to change readers' impressions of a performance depending on which statistics are highlighted, it's best to only single out certain statistics when another source (like a match report) also singles them out. This helps avoid violating Wikipedia's no original research policy.


 * The article cites many sources that, although probably reliable, are not independent of Clarke — in particular, the Brisbane Lions and University of Queensland websites, which combined make up almost one-third of the article's sources. Ideally, these should not make up such a significant portion of the references, as there is a risk the article will reflect these sources' probable bias in Clarke's favour. If you wish to improve the article further, consider searching for independent sources to replace and/or supplement these sources.
 * The post-career sections use five direct quotes from Clarke, which might be a few too many. Consider omitting or integrating a couple into prose.

A couple of minor stylistic points: Overall, don't let these bulky comments fool you; you've made massive improvements from the article's initial state, adding much-needed detail to almost every aspect. It's always great to see new editors make such strong contributions. I see Schwede66 has already upgraded the rating to C-class, which in my view is a fair decision. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style prefers straight (") quotation marks and apostrophes over their curly (”) variants.
 * Integers from zero to nine are typically spelled out in full in Wikipedia articles.
 * Headings should be in sentence case.