Talk:Whitney Engen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Knope7 (talk · contribs) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I plan to review this article. Knope7 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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 sentence "Engen played club soccer for nine years, the last four of those years being with Slammers FC in Newport Beach" is both closely paraphrased from the source and unclear in its time frame. It's unclear when the source was written, so it is also unclear if it refers to 9 years before/and during her college career or if it is up do date with her activities since.
 * I still think the nine years figure is out of date. It looks like it was nine years as of her college career, then she played for other clubs. I think just saying she played club soccer during her youth, or something similar, would be sufficient. Knope7 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I made the change myself. Knope7 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The section would be easier to read if it was closer to chronological order. Discussing early club career while in high school would make more sense before mentioning her graduation from high school.
 * ✅ not chronological, but organized Knope7 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "She appeared in all 28 games for the team, starting all 28, and led the team in minutes played with 2,518." Saying she appeared in all 28 and started all 28 is repetitive. Saying the started in all 28 games for the team would eliminate that problem.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence "She made her final appearance on October 15." should be clarified as it was her final appearance of the season with the team.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence "In January 2014, Engen was allocated to expansion team Houston Dash via the 2014 NWSL Player Allocation," or the next sentence should include a brief explanation of the NWSL or the NWSL Player Allocation. The article generally does a nice job of briefly explaining different leagues in other places and I think the same could be done here.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "On November 10, 2015, it was announced that the Chicago Red Stars had exchanged Abby Erceg, Adriana Leon, and a first-round pick in the 2016 NWSL College Draft with the Western New York Flash for Engen and a fourth-round pick in the 2017 NWSL College Draft." Passive voice and the sentence is hard to read. Next sentence is also passive voice. I don't think all of the trade details are necessary, so much as she was traded to the Chicago Red Stars and then to the Boston Breakers.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Engen was named Defender of the Year by the Breakers following the 2016 season." Passive voice ('The Breakers named Engen' would fix it)
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Engen made her first appearance for the national team in the its second match of the Algarve Cup on March 4 against Norway." Delete the word 'the' or 'its'. The sentence might still be wordy with the deletion.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * US Soccer, currently source 4, says Engen did not play a match for the US Team in 2012. For all of the detail about what training camps she did and did not attend that year, stating she did not play a match for the team would be helpful and increase clarity.
 * ✅Knope7 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "The United States finished seventh in the tournament after a win over Korea DPR on March 12." should probably clarify Engen didn't play. Also, a possible downside to using US Soccer as a source so often is it is very friendly to the team. Isn't seventh place in a tournament a disappointment to the US? Big themes get a little lost. (Like is the team doing well? Is Engen doing well as a player?)
 * ❌Knope7 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "In late April, Engen was named to a 22-player roster for a match against Canada on May 8." maybe "for a match against Canada scheduled for May 8" to make it clear May 8 is the match and not the date she was named to the roster.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "She also made appearances in other two matches of the tournament, helping the United States win the 2016 SheBelieves Cup with a 2–1 win over Germany in their final game." My reading of the source is that one of the matches Engen started was the final game, I think that can be clarified in the article.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Under honors, "ACC All-Tournament Team: 2006, 2008" ACC All-Tournament Team 2008 is repeated in it's own bullet point so it can be removed here.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead looks like it should be updated. The sentence about being cut from the US National Team does not need to be cited in the lead since it is cited later in the article. Her 39 appearances and 4 goals should probably be cited since I do not see the 39 appearances later in the article, or preferably added to the body of the article where it discusses her being cut from the US Team and provide the source at that point. It might help to lump the facts about her time with the US Team into one paragraph in the lead, although that is not a requirement.
 * The lead looks better. Only small point is the "She has since made 40 appearances" should be changed to reflect that is the total as of her 2016 split with the team to prevent it from becoming out of date. Knope7 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Section headings for 2015 and 2016 with the US Team are a little confusing as both mention specific tournaments and thus are not clear that the section covers to the entire year
 * ✅ Made the change myself. Knope7 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅Knope7 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Reference no. 4 to US Soccer should be linked to the tab where the information can be found, thus far that would be tab 3 which gives her playing history: http://www.ussoccer.com/players/2014/03/15/05/07/whitney-engen#tab-3
 * ✅ 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Match report 1 source is a dead link, should be retrieved, if possible or labeled a dead link
 * ✅ 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The sentence "Engen made the start in the 2011 WPS Championship on August 27, 2011 against the Philadelphia Independence." does not appear to be supported by the bleacher report reference. The article confirms she played, not that she started.
 * The US Soccer source now confirms she played the entire championship game, but it does not support every sentence in that paragraph for which it is the source. Knope7 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ now appeared instead of started Knope7 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Engen remained with the Breakers for the 2016 season and made nine appearances for the team before joining the United States women's national team in preparation for the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro." Reference 13 appears to provide statistics and does not say she left the Breakers to train for the Olympics.
 * removed nine appearances. Knope7 (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The new source only supports she took a break for the Olympics, it does not support that she made 9 appearances with the team beforehand. Knope7 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Engen was not named to the roster for the 2010 CONCACAF Women's World Cup Qualifying tournament and did not return to the national team until early 2011." Source does not mention Engen at all and does not provide the necessary support for her return to the team in 2011.
 * ✅ 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "She was not named to the 20-player roster for the 2012 CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying tournament but joined the team following the tournament for a training camp in Frisco, Texas leading up to a mach against New Zealand on February 11." The cited source only mentions the CONCACAF roster, it does not mention Engen returning to training camp. The sentence is also a bit long.
 * Camp now sourced but otherwise unchanged. Knope7 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * removed refernce to New Zealand to make the sentence more concise and it didn't seem important. Knope7 (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "he made her first appearance since 2011 on March 8 in the match against China. She started the match and scored the fifth and final goal of the game in the 84th minute." Source says it was her fourth appearance for the team and first goal. I do not see where the cited source says it was her first appearance since 2011.
 * ❌ 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed first since 2011 to fourth career appearance based on sourcing. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Engen was featured along with her national teammates in the EA Sports' FIFA video game series in FIFA 16, the first time women players were included in the game." Source does not specifically mention Engen. Same with the ticker tape parade source, although that at least says all 23 team members were there. The key to the city source does not mention all players received keys. The White House also does not mention Engen.
 * ✅ removed Knope7 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Soccer Buzz All-Southeast Region Freshman Team: 2006", I don't see this in the prose, so it needs to be sourced in the Honors section, same with "ACC All-Academic Women's Soccer Team: 2006" and "ACC Academic Honor Roll: 2007" and "Duke adidas Classic MVP: 2008"

✅ Knope7 (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Team honors "FA Women's Super League: 2013" needs source
 * I found a more direct source and used that. Knope7 (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

✅Knope7 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * The sentence "She lettered for two years as a forward and attacking midfielder on the varsity soccer team, but missed her junior season with an injury and then concentrated on club soccer during her senior year." should either be a quote from the source or rephrased.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * *Very intricate for Engen's career. A few sentences about her life outside of soccer would be helpful. I see from sources she was a political science major and USA soccer has details of her life growing up. The focus on soccer is appropriate, however, a few details about her life or personality would help give a better sense of the person.
 * Source implies Engen did not play in the final match of the 2015 World Cup. Given that other times Engen did not play are mentioned, I think this is a major game she missed and worth mentioning.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2016 Olympics were Engen's last tournament with the US National Team and from what I recall of coverage, the US considered the tournament a major disappointment. I think more context is needed for the loss with Sweden, starting with the final placement of the US Team.
 * ✅ Knope7 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the US team has undergone coach changes over the last few years. Did any of that change Engen's role with the team? What is her playing style like? What is her role on the team like? These are just some examples of some of the large questions the article doesn't address. I think a few sentences that address these or similar questions would help.


 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Images are copyrighted and require attribution
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * First, so much of this article is really nicely done. There is a tremendous attention to detail and a large number of sources used. The major parts of the article are solid. Most of what needs to be improved are small things and I have tried to be as specific as possible.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * First, so much of this article is really nicely done. There is a tremendous attention to detail and a large number of sources used. The major parts of the article are solid. Most of what needs to be improved are small things and I have tried to be as specific as possible.
 * First, so much of this article is really nicely done. There is a tremendous attention to detail and a large number of sources used. The major parts of the article are solid. Most of what needs to be improved are small things and I have tried to be as specific as possible.


 * The section on Engen's time with the national team is heavy on primary sources and needs some secondary sources. I think secondary sources might help address some large themes that the US Team's own material doesn't focus on. Things like how the team is doing and what is Engen's role. The US sources are nice for statistics but they don't give an objective picture of how the team, and Engen as member of that team, is doing. I do think Wikipedia's guidelines also prefer secondary sources where available.


 * That goes to the biggest improvement that I think can be made. The article is much stronger on statistics and factual details than it is on larger themes and relationships. Things like Engen's style of play or her personality don't really come through. I think this could be adequately addressed with a few sentences and doesn't require a major overhaul. As I said, the article is largely solid.


 * Because it took me so long to review, I will give two weeks for the hold. If more time is needed or if clarification is needed on any point please let me know. I'd be happy to discuss any part of the article or my review. Knope7 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding, I see Engen the lead has been updated with Engen's announcement that she will not be returning to professional soccer. I think that that needs to be moved to the body of the article with the source. The lead can mention that she is leaving professional soccer but probably could probably do so in a more general way. Knope7 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Revisions
 * Hello, I have addressed all points of your review and made the appropriate edits to the article. One thing to note: I do understand that the article is largely about her soccer career. Alas, that is the only part of her life that is actually covered by reliable sources. I cannot draw my own conclusions or form my own opinions regarding her style of play, the "bigger picture" of her role on the team, or her "personality" because there are no sources that discuss these topics. I have done by best with the information that is out there. Please let me know if there are any other major changes that are needed and I will get to them in a timely manner. Thanks. Soccerfan1996 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will look at your changes over the coming days. I don't agree that no reliable sources exist addressing other topics. For starters, this LA Times piece has a few nice details. The LA Times, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN all have mentioned Engen in several articles, some of which provide some more sense of Engen outside of stats. I understand Engen will not have received coverage as expansive or in depth as players like Lloyd or Wombach but there is some reliable coverage out there that would help this article be comprehensive. Knope7 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Knope7, have you been able to look at those February 18 changes yet? Where does the article stand now with regard to the GA criteria? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the note. Somethings have come up recently and I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately. I should be able to make time to finish the second round of checking this article tomorrow.


 * I do still have some lingering concerns that I know were not changed. They are mostly are small, but the biggest issue is that the section of the article related to Engen's time with the US National Team is sourced entirely using articles from US Soccer, which was Engen's employer. I do think the sort of information US Soccer relayed was accurate and reliable, as it mostly concerns which players were chosen for certain training camps or tournaments. My concern is that this focus on individual training camps and tournaments doesn't cover bigger picture of Engen's role on the team and the team's ups and downs while she was a part of it. The nominator correctly pointed out that Engen did not receive as much media attention as some of her teammates, however, I have found numerous articles from sources like ESPN and Sports Illustrated that touch on the bigger issues I mentioned.


 * So my question is, does the reliance on US Soccer articles and the absence of sources that focus on other aspects of Engen's time with national team require further revisions? I understand that articles must be comprehensive, but I am trying to weigh that against the fact that reviewers are not supposed to impose their own personal preferences. Any guidance on this issue would help. I may finish my comments on the revisions and put this up for a second opinion. Knope7 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see more content has been added to the end of the article. I am continue checking all changes and I will give more detailed feed back once I have had a chance to carefully review all changes. Knope7 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few minor points mentioned in my initial review that were not addressed. If they cannot be addressed, kindly explain so I can consider leaving them. Knope7 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

second opinion
I am requesting a second opinion for the following related issues:
 * 1) The 'International career' section is entirely sourced to US Soccer. US Soccer was Engen's employer. Can the article be passed with so much sourcing coming from Engen's employer? I don't think all of the sourcing would need to be changed. My concern is mainly that other sources should be mixed in.
 * 2) The US Soccer articles tend to focus on things like who was invited to camps, how much time people played, and the final score. My concern is this leaves out other aspects of her international career, such as why she was being left off the team at times and how she was performing. Although Engen was not as widely covered as some of her teammates, my own searches show that there are articles which provide more color for her role on the team. Some of my concerns with comprehensiveness were assuaged by the new 'Style of play' section.

I think the article will pass, but my question is really should I wait until the concerns above are addressed or is the article ready without revising that section? Knope7 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't think it is too much of an issue if the sourcing on international career is to a single source. As long as the source is reliable and the information is not controversial. As to your second point I must express some surprise. A quick look at this article and my first thought was that this is far too comprehensive. It seems to have details on every single game she has played (105 is a decent amount). It is on the upper end of the readable prose size limit (at 40kb currently). There could be a reasonable case made for it failing the focus criteria, but as long as the information is relevant to Engen it is probably alright. Anyway, I would definitely not ask for further expansions without some trimming. Bottom line, I think it is fine to pass as is without the extra revisions you are asking for. AIR corn (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, . I will take a closer look again over the next few days. Knope7 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * can you please clarify the 105 number? She played 40 games with the national team and that's the section about which I had concerns. Anyway, it's not about wanting more content so much as focusing a little more on big ideas. I'd be fine sacrificing mention of individual camps for mentions of why she was or wasn't being selected for tournaments. I'll accept though that it maybe more personal preference than anything else and I'll now focus on checking to make sure all of my other comments have been addressed. Thanks again for taking them time to comment. Knope7 (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the infobox, but now see that was just college games. Either way the point I was trying to make was that she has played a lot of games so such a large article may be justified. Good articles are only supposed to be good. That is a relatively low bar to cross (read What the Good article criteria are not to see just how low). I think your concerns are valid. It focuses a lot on game reports and not so much on her playing style or even how she performed in the game. It is not a great article, but it is also not a bad article. It is up to you to decide if it is a good article however. It has been under review for over four months now and it is probably time to just decide if you think it is acceptable in its current form and pass it, or if it is not then fail it. AIR corn (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience,. I am now passing the article. Congratulations! Knope7 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)