![]() | Keira Walsh has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 29, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Keira Walsh appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
In the club table, why do half the entries refer to WSL 1 and half to WSL, yet both link to the same page? -- SGBailey ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Kingsif: have you considered putting this through WP:GAN? We don't have that many women's football GAs and I believe that this article represents some of Wikipedia's best work. I would submit it myself but I haven't made any significant edits to the article and can't see anything that needs doing. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CommunityNotesContributor ( talk · contribs) 15:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've started this review now. Firstly, thanks for nominating this article. On the face of it and from what I've read, it's well-written and considerably detailed, so congrats on that. Please bare with me as it will take some to get through, I'll start on sources, then get to content with an overall summary I'll be developing below. I'll create sections for anything that I believe requires significant improvement. Pinging @ User:Kingsif as has expressed interest in being available.
* Suggestion: Based on the slight issue of focus, re
WP:OFFTOPIC as referenced below, I'm proposing to move the sentences focusing on City history, as opposed to Walsh, to City's history section, then leaving a summary here. It's obviously outside of GA remit to be improving other pages, and I wouldn't want valuable information to be removed from here (if refined) without it being placed where it belongs. I also don't believe I should be failing this GA based on focus that for me is a neutral, but otherwise confident that –
If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic.
– definitely applies here. I otherwise wouldn't consider this a major "contribution" if it's removing text rather than adding it, so happy to help in the interest of improving the article's focus.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
To clarify my understanding of bias opinions regarding Walsh (that is/should be subject to scrutiny) based on
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with
in-text attribution.
I also think this is a very liberal approach, given that any opinion comes from a place of bias. Naturally any opinion with "extraordinary" claims should also be attributed, but otherwise "played well" isn't something I believe inherently requires attribution for example.
Have now completed assessment of content.
Haven't read full article yet but reads well.
Initial thought is that some of her early life could be summarised into it (for example into second paragraph), such as Young Sports Person of the Year and no.1 at badminghton under-13s seems
MOS:LEADREL, as this could be considered as part of her career as a sportsperson, likewise with U-17 Team of the Tournament. Certainly nothing wrong with it, but could be expanded to up to four paragraphs based on
WP:LEADSIZE. Done
A lot of information documents City's history, as opposed to specifically Walsh. While it does provide good context, it's significantly more detailed than for example City's 2016–2020 history, and would be useful included there, then summarised in this article. I'll get to these later, but as a summary, any paragraph that doesn't reference Walsh would better be suited on City's page, with/without a summarised version for context in this article.
a No 6, a sitting midfielder(a.k.a. holding, and this term is mentioned just below by article author). Kingsif ( talk) 04:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
From the start, Manchester City under Taylor played Walsh differently,[132] with goalkeeper Ellie Roebuck believing her development into a box-to-box midfielder arrived in the 2021–22 season.[143]Not that, but something like it, ideally better, and attributing that bias opinion to Roebuck as per INTEXT:
it should always be used for biased statements of opinion. The Offside Rule ref is otherwise misplaced there. This is why I prefer to remove a "but" and move on, rather than dig into these things.
Under Gareth Taylor, Walsh’s passing numbers have dropped significantly with Manchester City often looking to play more directly through Alex Greenwood or Bronze.(and continues) - so this is where the article's "Manchester City under Taylor..." is from/can be sourced without the Man City " Roebuck" reference. The only thing that one is needed for is the quote of City/apparently Roebuck in the previous sentence ("taken her game to a new level") Like, it's definitely a Man City press release by another name. I'm going to make some tweaks to the "under Taylor" bit of prose first. Kingsif ( talk) 02:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
In May, Walsh was nominated for City's Player of the Season,[18] with the club feeling she had "taken her game to a new level" during it.[142] Manchester City under Taylor played Walsh differently from the start, with Walsh staying close to and mainly passing to the defense;[131][9] while continuing to have among the highest passing statistics in the WSL,[8] her passing metrics, as well as "almost all of her metrics around attacking play", "dropped significantly" in the 2021–22 season.- removed the unneeded Man City ref from the "played Walsh differently" sentence and reorganised this to have the 'difference' mentioned earlier and to have the source-text integrity on when she played differently and what season the stats refer to. Having reviewed the Man City ref, Roebuck doesn't the quote used in the article; since it's in the headline of Man City's editorial, it looks like the club summarising the interview and other discussion in there. This may make the case of attribution more confusing, as we could say that neither of them said that (it's kind of done a Wikipedia film article job of summarising a review, just of football). While the quote is a good connection, it's probably not needed, and removal would solve that. Kingsif ( talk) 02:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was "crucial" in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.(current)
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was important in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and, per Suzanne Wrack, was crucial in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, with Suzanne Wrack writing she was crucial to Barcelona mounting their 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
Barcelona won the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League with a 3–2 comeback in the 2023 Champions League final; Walsh started in the final and Suzanne Wrack wrote that she was crucial to the victory.
...after the early weaker showing. Her performance in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost, however, was seen as strong–>
after the early weaker showing, but she performed well in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost. (1) Besides moving the conjunction, the interview source mentions there being "irony" over the improved performance, which would justify it. (2) The new sentence order makes it easier to change the conjunction - e.g.
after the early weaker showing. She then performed...(3) Based on the interview having praise (though framed as being more relaxed), and the match report using every superlative to talk about Walsh, I think "strong" in wikivoice would have been an acceptable summary, but the phrasing was just asking for a by whom tag; changing the phrasing and using "well" (fits the new phrasing better than "strongly") should make it watertight. Kingsif ( talk) 02:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
...sent a narrowly-saved "thunderbolt" strike...–>
...sent a narrowly-saved powerful strike.... Though not a word-quote that would ruffle feathers, there was a simple enough alternative.
Note: If not obvious, many if not most of these suggestions can be ignored if preferred and not related to V/NPOV.
As the longest section in this article, ideally it would have sub-headers, to maintain similar format length to other sections. Also, would the structure not make more sense with England and Great Britain as header3s, with Youth and Senior as header4 under England?
1–1 (4–2 (p)), with the "p" wikilinked to penalty shoot-out. Kingsif ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Since 2019, Walsh has been "an automatic starter for England," said by The Offside Rule to be "a name on the teamsheet that is never questioned",or similar.) Kingsif ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Had a good look through claims & sources here, really nothing much I can seriously critique.
References
Non-content discussion, collapsing for ease of navigation
|
---|
@ CommunityNotesContributor: Can I ask for clarification on your understanding of EDITORIAL, based on your removal of "however" in the part about the 2019 World Cup. I'm not saying "however" is the best word, but it is discouraged (i.e. it is a word to watch, not to avoid) only when it is being used to cast doubt on what is said before and encourage readers to believe what comes after. I have been questioning your …awareness… of that with other similar word removals, but since none of them have really affected understanding of the prose, I've not bothered. This one, though, I do think there is good reason to include. When discussing that she played weakly and then saying she played well (at least, as the media says), there should be a connection word acknowledging the disparity, so that readers aren't confused. This may also be somewhat relevant earlier (thinking about City support but Spanish inspiration, though I personally think rewriting that part would be better). Anyway, I would also like to point out that by adding in-line attribution only for the part about playing well (and not about playing poorly), you have actually done some editorialising - when there are two contrasting things, a reader will accept wikivoice but may take what is attributed with a grain of salt, so the edit you made could be inappropriately casting doubt. Perhaps we can look at what the original prose was and discuss the best ways to improve it. Kingsif ( talk) 16:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
|
{{reflist|group=a}} is not a note list and should be placed in References section where it belongs, as they are links to references not notes. Ideally these would be in a
H:CITEMERGE based
WP:CITEBUNDLE, but at minimum citations need to be placed in the references section, if there is no note to reference. As pedanntic as it may sound, this is a basic requirement for GA status based on
MOS:REFERENCES, even if the style you chose is entirely up to you. Personally, I find
multiref2 is a relatively easy and straightforward way to do this, and more relevantly is convenient for the reader to access.
Ignore this, in hindsight pretty much any notes/reference format is OK it seems, as long as it's established and consistent.
Done for now
|
---|
Have completed assessment of sources listing those that are unreliable, broken or otherwise could do with improvement.
CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 05:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Please change the url status' to dead so the archive becomes the primary link, or otherwise remove cite and content if no archive available:
List of sources that are reliable, but otherwise could better, or lack cite data. Not required for GA.
Sources that are questionable such as WP:BLOGS, but the authors/team are notable and therefore I believe the sources to be reliable. Note: This list referenced below is for any future reviewers so can be ignored by nominees for current review:
|
This article undoubtedly meets all the criteria for GA standard after considerable work. I believe it to be not just "good enough" for GA, but simply a good article, if not great. Credit to main contributor @ Kingsif for being patient with me, as well as support from nominee @ Spiderone.
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
14:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Kingsif ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Keira Walsh; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
@
Kingsif: the article is new enough, long enough and the first and second hook is interesting, though I think the third one may link too much and take away from the actual centrepiece of the hook. However, none of the hooks you proposed have been sourced in your nomination, please update it with a reliable source.
TheBritinator (
talk)
14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Keira Walsh has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 29, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Keira Walsh appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
In the club table, why do half the entries refer to WSL 1 and half to WSL, yet both link to the same page? -- SGBailey ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Kingsif: have you considered putting this through WP:GAN? We don't have that many women's football GAs and I believe that this article represents some of Wikipedia's best work. I would submit it myself but I haven't made any significant edits to the article and can't see anything that needs doing. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CommunityNotesContributor ( talk · contribs) 15:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've started this review now. Firstly, thanks for nominating this article. On the face of it and from what I've read, it's well-written and considerably detailed, so congrats on that. Please bare with me as it will take some to get through, I'll start on sources, then get to content with an overall summary I'll be developing below. I'll create sections for anything that I believe requires significant improvement. Pinging @ User:Kingsif as has expressed interest in being available.
* Suggestion: Based on the slight issue of focus, re
WP:OFFTOPIC as referenced below, I'm proposing to move the sentences focusing on City history, as opposed to Walsh, to City's history section, then leaving a summary here. It's obviously outside of GA remit to be improving other pages, and I wouldn't want valuable information to be removed from here (if refined) without it being placed where it belongs. I also don't believe I should be failing this GA based on focus that for me is a neutral, but otherwise confident that –
If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic.
– definitely applies here. I otherwise wouldn't consider this a major "contribution" if it's removing text rather than adding it, so happy to help in the interest of improving the article's focus.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
To clarify my understanding of bias opinions regarding Walsh (that is/should be subject to scrutiny) based on
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with
in-text attribution.
I also think this is a very liberal approach, given that any opinion comes from a place of bias. Naturally any opinion with "extraordinary" claims should also be attributed, but otherwise "played well" isn't something I believe inherently requires attribution for example.
Have now completed assessment of content.
Haven't read full article yet but reads well.
Initial thought is that some of her early life could be summarised into it (for example into second paragraph), such as Young Sports Person of the Year and no.1 at badminghton under-13s seems
MOS:LEADREL, as this could be considered as part of her career as a sportsperson, likewise with U-17 Team of the Tournament. Certainly nothing wrong with it, but could be expanded to up to four paragraphs based on
WP:LEADSIZE. Done
A lot of information documents City's history, as opposed to specifically Walsh. While it does provide good context, it's significantly more detailed than for example City's 2016–2020 history, and would be useful included there, then summarised in this article. I'll get to these later, but as a summary, any paragraph that doesn't reference Walsh would better be suited on City's page, with/without a summarised version for context in this article.
a No 6, a sitting midfielder(a.k.a. holding, and this term is mentioned just below by article author). Kingsif ( talk) 04:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
From the start, Manchester City under Taylor played Walsh differently,[132] with goalkeeper Ellie Roebuck believing her development into a box-to-box midfielder arrived in the 2021–22 season.[143]Not that, but something like it, ideally better, and attributing that bias opinion to Roebuck as per INTEXT:
it should always be used for biased statements of opinion. The Offside Rule ref is otherwise misplaced there. This is why I prefer to remove a "but" and move on, rather than dig into these things.
Under Gareth Taylor, Walsh’s passing numbers have dropped significantly with Manchester City often looking to play more directly through Alex Greenwood or Bronze.(and continues) - so this is where the article's "Manchester City under Taylor..." is from/can be sourced without the Man City " Roebuck" reference. The only thing that one is needed for is the quote of City/apparently Roebuck in the previous sentence ("taken her game to a new level") Like, it's definitely a Man City press release by another name. I'm going to make some tweaks to the "under Taylor" bit of prose first. Kingsif ( talk) 02:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
In May, Walsh was nominated for City's Player of the Season,[18] with the club feeling she had "taken her game to a new level" during it.[142] Manchester City under Taylor played Walsh differently from the start, with Walsh staying close to and mainly passing to the defense;[131][9] while continuing to have among the highest passing statistics in the WSL,[8] her passing metrics, as well as "almost all of her metrics around attacking play", "dropped significantly" in the 2021–22 season.- removed the unneeded Man City ref from the "played Walsh differently" sentence and reorganised this to have the 'difference' mentioned earlier and to have the source-text integrity on when she played differently and what season the stats refer to. Having reviewed the Man City ref, Roebuck doesn't the quote used in the article; since it's in the headline of Man City's editorial, it looks like the club summarising the interview and other discussion in there. This may make the case of attribution more confusing, as we could say that neither of them said that (it's kind of done a Wikipedia film article job of summarising a review, just of football). While the quote is a good connection, it's probably not needed, and removal would solve that. Kingsif ( talk) 02:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was "crucial" in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.(current)
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was important in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and, per Suzanne Wrack, was crucial in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, with Suzanne Wrack writing she was crucial to Barcelona mounting their 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
Barcelona won the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League with a 3–2 comeback in the 2023 Champions League final; Walsh started in the final and Suzanne Wrack wrote that she was crucial to the victory.
...after the early weaker showing. Her performance in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost, however, was seen as strong–>
after the early weaker showing, but she performed well in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost. (1) Besides moving the conjunction, the interview source mentions there being "irony" over the improved performance, which would justify it. (2) The new sentence order makes it easier to change the conjunction - e.g.
after the early weaker showing. She then performed...(3) Based on the interview having praise (though framed as being more relaxed), and the match report using every superlative to talk about Walsh, I think "strong" in wikivoice would have been an acceptable summary, but the phrasing was just asking for a by whom tag; changing the phrasing and using "well" (fits the new phrasing better than "strongly") should make it watertight. Kingsif ( talk) 02:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
...sent a narrowly-saved "thunderbolt" strike...–>
...sent a narrowly-saved powerful strike.... Though not a word-quote that would ruffle feathers, there was a simple enough alternative.
Note: If not obvious, many if not most of these suggestions can be ignored if preferred and not related to V/NPOV.
As the longest section in this article, ideally it would have sub-headers, to maintain similar format length to other sections. Also, would the structure not make more sense with England and Great Britain as header3s, with Youth and Senior as header4 under England?
1–1 (4–2 (p)), with the "p" wikilinked to penalty shoot-out. Kingsif ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Since 2019, Walsh has been "an automatic starter for England," said by The Offside Rule to be "a name on the teamsheet that is never questioned",or similar.) Kingsif ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Had a good look through claims & sources here, really nothing much I can seriously critique.
References
Non-content discussion, collapsing for ease of navigation
|
---|
@ CommunityNotesContributor: Can I ask for clarification on your understanding of EDITORIAL, based on your removal of "however" in the part about the 2019 World Cup. I'm not saying "however" is the best word, but it is discouraged (i.e. it is a word to watch, not to avoid) only when it is being used to cast doubt on what is said before and encourage readers to believe what comes after. I have been questioning your …awareness… of that with other similar word removals, but since none of them have really affected understanding of the prose, I've not bothered. This one, though, I do think there is good reason to include. When discussing that she played weakly and then saying she played well (at least, as the media says), there should be a connection word acknowledging the disparity, so that readers aren't confused. This may also be somewhat relevant earlier (thinking about City support but Spanish inspiration, though I personally think rewriting that part would be better). Anyway, I would also like to point out that by adding in-line attribution only for the part about playing well (and not about playing poorly), you have actually done some editorialising - when there are two contrasting things, a reader will accept wikivoice but may take what is attributed with a grain of salt, so the edit you made could be inappropriately casting doubt. Perhaps we can look at what the original prose was and discuss the best ways to improve it. Kingsif ( talk) 16:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
|
{{reflist|group=a}} is not a note list and should be placed in References section where it belongs, as they are links to references not notes. Ideally these would be in a
H:CITEMERGE based
WP:CITEBUNDLE, but at minimum citations need to be placed in the references section, if there is no note to reference. As pedanntic as it may sound, this is a basic requirement for GA status based on
MOS:REFERENCES, even if the style you chose is entirely up to you. Personally, I find
multiref2 is a relatively easy and straightforward way to do this, and more relevantly is convenient for the reader to access.
Ignore this, in hindsight pretty much any notes/reference format is OK it seems, as long as it's established and consistent.
Done for now
|
---|
Have completed assessment of sources listing those that are unreliable, broken or otherwise could do with improvement.
CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 05:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Please change the url status' to dead so the archive becomes the primary link, or otherwise remove cite and content if no archive available:
List of sources that are reliable, but otherwise could better, or lack cite data. Not required for GA.
Sources that are questionable such as WP:BLOGS, but the authors/team are notable and therefore I believe the sources to be reliable. Note: This list referenced below is for any future reviewers so can be ignored by nominees for current review:
|
This article undoubtedly meets all the criteria for GA standard after considerable work. I believe it to be not just "good enough" for GA, but simply a good article, if not great. Credit to main contributor @ Kingsif for being patient with me, as well as support from nominee @ Spiderone.
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
14:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Kingsif ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Keira Walsh; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
@
Kingsif: the article is new enough, long enough and the first and second hook is interesting, though I think the third one may link too much and take away from the actual centrepiece of the hook. However, none of the hooks you proposed have been sourced in your nomination, please update it with a reliable source.
TheBritinator (
talk)
14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)