Talk:Steph Davies/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a total neophyte when it comes to this sport, fair warning ;P


 * She took part in a women's trial aged 13 This sounds really jarring, but it's quite possibly just a clash between between BrE (which the article rightfully uses) and AmE (which I'm used to reading/writing/speaking/etc..)


 * and claimed her first wicket for the side in the third of these I know that a "wicket" is a statistic of some sort, but as a neophyte reading this, a link here would really help.


 * "Overs" is used repeatedly, and could also use a wikilink to help those in need of explanation


 * She made her first appearance in the Super Fours—a competition in which the England selectors place the 48 leading players into four teams—in 2002, playing one match for Knight Riders. Not loving the endashes here. Suggest revise to In 2002, Davies made her first appearance in the Super Fours, a competition in which the England selectors place the 48 leading players into four teams, by playing one match for Knight Riders (the) Knight Riders?


 * The 2003 season saw Davies once again selected for the Super Fours competition Avoid anthropomorphic phrases like this. In 2003, Davies was again selected is greatly preferable


 * Another: The 50-over tournament also saw Davies enjoy some success


 * Her improved performances with the bat in the previous season also saw her bat slightly higher in the order for the Braves better as: Because of her improved performances(...), she batted slightly higher in the order


 * On the two occasions on which she was asked to bat, she scored 23—from number three—against Ireland and 31—as an opener—against Netherlands Yikes is this hard to follow. No harm in making this into two or three sentences so we don't need all these dashes.


 * After a reasonably quiet season with both bat and ball during 2006 No details? Surely a sportsperson's bio should include their successes and, if notable, struggles. Or is there no detail available?


 * In June 2007, Davies made her first appearance for the senior England side, albeit in a match against an ECB Invitational XI. What is the purpose of "albeit" in this sentence? And don't use acronyms without first spelling them out (if you spelled it out earlier, I missed it).
 * 'Albeit' is used because the match was in essence a friendly or trial match, rather than an official match, or an international match.  Harrias  talk 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * she was named as part of the England squad which would tour Australia and New Zealand The conditional is substandard to the simple past. Use which toured Australia and New Zealand


 * Starting university in Autumn 2007 A month would be greatly preferable to a season of the year. What's autumn to you and to me and to Davies is not autumn to everyone reading this article.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: I have very few nitpicks.
 * B. MOS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: Awful lot of reliance on one source, though it seems mostly to be for statistical information.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: All links are live, which is good.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: Every promoted bio I've ever seen has something, even just a little something, on the subject's personal/home life. We're not a tabloid newspaper here, but there's got to be more out there than just going to university in 2007.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: All images are free, which is excellent.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: The images need ALT text. I technically can't require it, but I greatly encourage it. I won't ask for an edit to Infobox cricketer if that's what would be required, but can the photo in the infobox get a caption (and, ideally, ALT text) as well? Out of curiosity, what does the parameter "female=true" do in this box?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Very solid work. This should easily pass GA after a few bolts are tightened.  Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Harrias is away at the moment, so I decided to help out. I've made all the language changes required, and padded out the 2006 bit. As for the comprehensiveness thing about her personal life, ladies' cricket is not at all mainstream, eg women's netball, basketball is shown on TV in places or on radio, with decent crowds, 2-3,000 people maybe, but international women's cricket matches usually draw only 50 people unless it is attached to a men's game and is more or less never televised or on radio; you can't actually find ladies international cricket scores in the print media, only on cricket databases. So even the most established players ranked in the top 5 in the rankings get almost nothing apart from the scorecards and results, let alone someone like Davies who hasn't been able to get a regular international position  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Parents/siblings names? Place of birth/residence? Marital status? Anything..? I'm not sure it passes for Major aspects if nothing is included. Article looks great otherwise (nudgenudge*alttext*nudgenudge*) and I'd hate to fail it (I'd ask for a second opinion first) for such a trifling thing. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As YellowMonkey suggests, there is very little written about female cricketers. I've scoured everything that can be considered a RS, and beyond tapping her on the shoulder and asking her next time I'm at a game; I don't think I'm going to get any personal information.  (Not that doing so would be verifiable anyway!)  If you must fail it because of that, then so be it.  As for alttext; I'll get to it, but as I understand it's a guideline rather than policy at the moment anyway.  Will look at this review a bit more in the next couple of days when I've got back into everything, only got home about half an hour ago!  Harrias  talk  19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's the best article you can write doesn't mean it meets the GA criteria. I'll ask for a second opinion on WP:GAN at this time. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but a 22-yo isn't likely to have any kids, in this case, most unlikely to have any spouse and kids otherwise they would have to stop playing for a while, which hasn't happened. So she hasn't any descendants, boyfriends can change regularly and aren't very important, and unlikely to be reported anyway unless the guy is famous as a female sportsperson doesn't get much attention, and is a student rather than a worker, so the only thing that could be missing is names of parents and siblings, and high school, which isn't remotely core information  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that the fact that it's the best article I can write doesn't mean it meets the GA criteria. That's why I said if it doesn't meet it then so be it.  However, I'd argue that they aren't really major aspects.  Looking in an old fashioned encyclopedia, parent's names are rarely mentioned unless especially relevant.  I'd argue that she is completely 'known' for her sport, who her parents are is pretty inconsequential.  Similarly for the school she attended; I see little relevance.  I can add in a sentence about where she was born, the information is currently only in the infobox, but I don't think it would be adding that much!  There is information on her university, which is possibly the only 'real' personal information in the article: though I include this primarily to discuss its affect on her cricket career.
 * As I said, I'll get to the alttext either later today or tomorrow; I always just find them so difficult to write! Not sure about the use of a caption in the infobox; this isn't something I've seen used in any other cricketer biographies, but I can't see how it can harm.  Harrias  talk  06:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My own personal view is that this article meets the criteria. I think it covers enough of her life that is relevant to her career as a cricketer. Also, the good article criteria for 3a state in a note: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Also, What the Good article criteria are not states "it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects" and it does not require "the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." My own reading of these is that information on her home life is not required to pass GA. I think I might add that sentence about where she was born, though. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll pass it then. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)