Wikipedia:Peer review/Fatima Whitbread/archive1

Fatima Whitbread


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to put if forward as a featured article candidate once it's ready for that process. The article about Whitbread's rival Tessa Sanderson reached featured status thanks to the input of helpful reviewers. Any suggestions that would help improve the article are welcome.

Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that I've only been through the FA process once, I do have a few comments about possible improvements: (1) I've been told that source reliability tends to be intensely scrutinized in FA reviews, and I note that one of the sources used in this article, Daily Mirror, appears on the Wikipedia list of perennial sources as a tabloid source that has been questioned or repeatedly discussed in terms of reliability (with no consensus). It might be wise to reduce or eliminate use of the Daily Mirror. (2) While the early career section provides javelin distance result conversion (metres to feet), later career paragraphs give results in metres only. I think you should aim for consistency in this throughout the article. (3) MOS recommends photos be placed on the righthand side of articles for easier reading. (4) Alt text for photos could be improved -- the infobox photo has no alt text, and existing alt text for the Sanderson and Felke photos should be more clearly descriptive. For example, instead of "A headshot of Tessa Anderson," you could write something like "A brown-skinned woman with straight black hair, wearing a white headband and a gold hoop earring, looks off to one side." I just checked out the MOS guidelines for this, and was surprised to find that they don't seem to put much value on communicating specific visual details about the image. I attended a professional workshop on alt text earlier this year, and we were told that the best alt text, while not being too lengthy (1-3 concise sentences), should still communicate the key visual details of the image in order to give users with screen readers a full, equitable reading experience. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To ensure that they saw the above comments. Are you still interested in working on this, or should we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for more feedback, but, as it's been a month, I tend to agree it's time to close this.
 * Many thanks, . (I'm hoping to see more FAC nominations/reviews from you soon!)
 * I'll look for alternatives to the Daily Mirror source (although I think it's reputation was damaged some time after the articles used were published).
 * I replaced one, but, surprisingly, couldn't find another source for the other. This does suggest that perhaps the info should be omitted, but I've retained it for now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look into sources about results conversion. (I have a feeling that sources stop using imperial measurements at some point; there may be some Wikipedia policy or guidelines I'm not aware of.)
 * added these in. The first two results under early career are in the T&F2 template because those were reported only in imperial measurements. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My defence to the image positioning is MOS:IM: "It is often preferable to place images of people so they 'look' toward the text. Do not achieve this by reversing the image." I'll browse some recent FA reviews and see what reviewers have said about this issue.
 * "Alt text for photos could be improved" - a valuable point. I'm not sure where the right place to raise this with a view to getting the MOS amended would be, but seems like that would be worth following up on. For now, I've stolen your suggested text for the Sanderson image.
 * Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)