Talk:Millie Knight/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. NOTE: I am a wikicup participant.

Some preliminary comments:

I am going to place this article on hold because at present, it is quite a ways from GA class. This doesn't mean it can't get there, but as of now, it is not comprehensive enough for a GA. It is well-sourced as far as it goes, and a shorter article CAN be approved for GA, but this is too short and not complete enough. See if you can expand it a bit, perhaps with more detail on her toxocariasis and how she adapts to this as a paralympic athelete. Also, the lead is a little unclear in its wording that she is a paralympic athelete, initially it reads as if she is on the regular team. May want to look at that a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Added 'Paralympic' to lead, is toxocariasis only bit to be expanded? Thanks, Matty.007 19:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit, but I'm not sure if we need all the stuff about the exact condition and how she got it and what she did, though you may disagree with me. Thanks, Matty.007 19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, so good, I like what you've added, though you'll want to do a copyedit and take another look at that Daily Mail article you have as a source; I'd add the bit about the link to the family dog, you mention it in passing, but it's actually highly relevant; here we have a loved, cared-for child from a good family and yet she cotnracts this devastating condition (yada, yada, yada). It's a compelling story. I used that as an example of where you could expand, I do think the article needs quite a bit more content to pass GA. There is also more you could add about her earlier career, when looking at this source, it mentions her first major win in 2012, which is not in the article.

I took another look at the GA criteria, and there is no size guideline at all, really, but I do think we need a bit more comprehensiveness before I'm comfortable giving it the nod. But as long as you're plugging away on it, I will sure help to see if we can get this passed in time for the current wikicup round, but I don't want to do a poor review just because there's a deadline looming...  ;-)

If you wonder what I'm looking at, I got a GA a few months back for Kathy Ritvo, who is, admittedly, not 15 years old, so there was a bit more material, but she had a health issue that I discussed and that may be useful to look at. A GA I got for an "athlete" if you will (!) was Paynter (horse). I certainly don't think you have to do an article as long as those two, but it may give you some ideas for your article.

I'm going to add the review table I like to use, and that should help outline the problem areas. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for someone to compare with, I recently had Jade Etherington promoted, and she won more medals so had much more coverage. A GA that is extremely similiar in the age of the subjects is the recently promoted Ben Tudhope (again note the small size). In the UK, the Paralympics get a fair bit of coverage, the winter Paralympics and winter Olympics don't get loads though. Anyway, just a heads up as to the status of things, I'll have a look at your comments. Thanks for the review, Matty.007 10:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the Mail that says that it was her family dog, or a dog at all: the headline "Girl nearly goes blind after parasite in dog mess that travelled from her stomach to her eyeball" isn't repeated in the article, which instead states that the disease is "found in the faeces of dogs and cat". Am I missing a source/statement? Knight's 2012 win at Landgraaf is already included in the article, "Together with her sighted guide, Rachael Ferrier, Knight won two silver medals in the International Paralympic Committee Alpine Ski races at Landgraaf". What more should be added to the article? Thanks, Matty.007 10:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The way the 2012 year is phrased, she started competing in 2012, but not clear that Landgraff was 2012, a win in her first year is notable, worth emphasizing somehow .

Just IMHO, Etherington is pretty solid, but I would not have passed Tudhope as it sits, though I am also not the sort to file a GAR, either. (I think that's unneeded drama and second-gueses the reviewer.) There is some criticism out there that wikicup reviews are passing inferior articles to game the system, and so for both of our sakes, I want to be sure that your article will stand up to an independent review. ;-)

I made some copyedits to the bit that was bugging me the most; you are most certainly free to revert or to tweak to your satisfaction, I'm not tied to my prose. But you might note how the addition gives us context for her unique situation and gives the reader a little bit of background on how the condition affected her. I also added all that could be added from the BBC Slalom source. I am going through the other sources and will comment on material from each that I think will enhance the article in hidden text in the article itself, toss when read and do as you see fit with my suggestions. You still need to do another copyedit, I caught a couple small things along the way, but I don['t want to make too many edits to it to the point that I cannot be viewed as a neutral reviewer ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Figured it would be simpler to pop in hidden text within the article itself, toss as read; I reviewed all the sources and saw some other things that are worth adding and noted them inthe hidden text, I'd particularly add the bit about precisely how much sight she has and I noted other useful little tidbits about her career. The various sources seem to contradict each other; the Landgraff meet might have been in 2013, and there is a passing mention of a single first gold medal that occurred before the pair, but not what meet - don't know if there is a site somewhere that just lists all her races and placings, but if there is, that would be good to check, the news stories contradict each other a bit. By the way, I also loathe one-sentence paragraphs; they are poor prose style too. Either expand them or merge them into other material, ok? I think resolve these issues and add at least some of the things I spotted and I'll be ready to sign off on this. Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tips: doing now. As a bynote, whilst looking at her Twitter feed to see if there was any interesting primary info, I found that she is in the Queen's Baton Relay, so will add that later too. Thanks, Matty.007 10:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw: I think I got all the notes, just adding about Relay then over to you again... Thanks, Matty.007 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Looking much better, only three things left now: 1) We can't use facebook as a WP:RS (unless you can find an exception in the MOS, I can't), but most of the material you cited there can be verified via the other sources (everything but the "financial reasons" bit I saw elsewhere), I saw the info there. 2) Do another copyedit; there are some spacing problems, a few misplaced commas, etc. I fixed one ref problem for you 3) Do a bit of reworking on the lead so that it more closely follows the article as currently structured. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I came across Twitter being used as a RS in a DYK nom a little while ago by BlueMoonset (not proper ping, no need to annoy him): the only thing I could find was this essay, which seems fairly reasonable, but I don't think the MOS covers it. I will work on the other issues today hopefully. Thanks, Matty.007 16:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I have had enough GA/FA drama that I generally avoid facebook and twitter links unless it is absolutely, positively the only possible way to get any information; occasionally I have used an official, verified twitter account as a WP:PRIMARY source for something people said, or, once, for a minor humorous aside ;-)

Montanabw: better now? Thanks, Matty.007 17:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Now you have footnote five saying it's not defined. Need to figure out which one that is meant to be... I boldly killed one of the facebook citations I knew was (mostly) referenced elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Also, this sentence needs a serious copyedit, it looks like one of those things were you added something to the middle without matching up the ends ;-) (No worries, I do this a lot too!): "She raced at the Europa Cup in slalom and giant slalom in spring 2013, and together with her sighted guide, Rachael Ferrier, Knight won two silver medals in the International Paralympic Committee Alpine Ski races at Landgraaf, after Ferrier joined Knight in February 2013." Then do a final run-through looking for typos, awkward phrasing and the like, kill that last facebook link, and I will be happy. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Montabw: I have given the article a once over, and removed one facebook link but I can't remove the other without removing the fact as I can't find it anywhere else. Thanks, Matty.007 09:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: I'm going to do one run-through myself and see what I catch, if anything, then I should be able to pass it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for the review Montanabw. Best, Matty.007 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Needs some copyediting, though probably should be done after more material is added
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well-sourced to date, will wait for full source review pending additional content all sourcing solid, confident that additional sources will be equally well-done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Needs more material, lacks comprehensiveness Good to go
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Definitely not too broad, rather the opposite
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images, will approve for GA without images but will leave this just in case an image is found prior to close of review
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not applicable
	7. Overall assessment.