| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SilkTork ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.
SilkTork (
talk)
Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and
verifiable?
- A. Has an
appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources
where necessary:
- C.
No original research:
- A. Has an
appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A.
Major aspects:
- B.
Focused:
- A.
Major aspects:
- Is it
neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No
edit wars, etc:
- No
edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain
images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
Comments on GA criteria
- Pass
- Has a reference section. SilkTork ( talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Stable. There were problems earlier in the year, but since the article was semi-protected it has been stable. SilkTork ( talk) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Images have appropriate copyright stats tags. SilkTork ( talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Copyvio checked. Nothing significant turned up. Allowable use of similar information from uslacrosse.org/sites/default/files/public/documents/rules/2016-womens-rulebook.pdf. SilkTork ( talk) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Query
- Prose is not clear and readable. There is no real flow to the text - it does read in places like notes toward an article rather than a finished article. Sometimes there is a dump of information which is hard to digest: "The European Lacrosse Federation (ELF) was established in 1995 and held the first European Lacrosse Championships that year. Originally an annual event, it is now held every four years, in between FIL's men's and women's championships. In 2004, 12 men's and 6 women's teams played in the tournament, making it the largest international lacrosse event of the year. The last men's tournament was in 2016, when 24 countries participated. England won its ninth gold medal out of the ten tournaments played. 2015 was the last women's tournament, when 17 teams participated in the Czech Republic." We have a lot of numbers and dates compressed into a small space, as well as number and date related words: first, annual. The first sentence is about establishing the Federation, but the second sentence references an annual event, which must be the Championships. Such poor construction is present throughout the article. I would suggest a thorough copyedit - see Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. When the topic has been fully researched from detailed texts (rather than snippets copied from often dubious quality websites), and the article has been built up so there is an appropriate body of information giving a clear understanding of the game, then get in touch with Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to request a copyedit. SilkTork ( talk) 10:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fail
- Broad coverage. The article is very thin, and comes across as notes toward an article, and has a number of gaps. I am left with more questions than answers. There isn't a section which describes what lacrosse is, though there are sections which describe the variations. This feels more like either a Start article: "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." Or a C class article: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." It perhaps fall somewhere between the two. SilkTork ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Reliable sources. Sources used are inadequate for a Good Article. The sources are mostly websites rather than reliable sources provided detailed and authoritative information. The websites will have got their information from a reliable source with a named author, and that is what our articles aim to do. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance on which sources are seen as reliable. SilkTork ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
General comments
- The information in the second paragraph of the History section is sourced to STX, a retail website. The website gathered that information from several texts which they list. It would be better to cite the appropriate reliable source, not the shop. SilkTork ( talk) 23:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- The sources used are quite poor. For example, the source used to support that lacrosse is "The Creator's Game" is a cultural/community website which has very little information on lacrosse - oneidaindiannation, yet that information is readily available in several informative texts: "The Creator's Game", American Indian Lacrosse, Lacrosse: A History of the Game, etc. SilkTork ( talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- The prose and contents of the article read more like notes toward an article rather than a finished article. There are several sparse two or three line paragraphs. SilkTork ( talk) 03:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
On hold
I have a number of concerns with the article in terms of depth of coverage, prose, and poor quality sourcing. I think there is information here which can be used to held build the article, though fresh research of good quality sources is needed to put flesh on the bones. A period of planning and deciding what information is needed (this is a significant topic and would benefit from a period of serious reflection on structure and content), and then written up as best as possible before requesting a copyedit, and then resubmitting for GAN. In my experience, given the amount of material on the topic, this is likely to take some months rather than a few days; however, I have known articles to be turned around in a week or two with determined contributors so I will put on hold for seven days to give the nominator and interested contributors an opportunity to consider what they wish to do. My recommendation is to take the time to do it properly than try to rush it under the pressure of a GA review. SilkTork ( talk) 10:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Fail
I am closing this GAN as not-listed. The issues not addressed, and only one edit has been made since putting the GA on hold. Once the issues have been resolved, the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SilkTork ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.
SilkTork (
talk)
Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and
verifiable?
- A. Has an
appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources
where necessary:
- C.
No original research:
- A. Has an
appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A.
Major aspects:
- B.
Focused:
- A.
Major aspects:
- Is it
neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No
edit wars, etc:
- No
edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain
images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
Comments on GA criteria
- Pass
- Has a reference section. SilkTork ( talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Stable. There were problems earlier in the year, but since the article was semi-protected it has been stable. SilkTork ( talk) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Images have appropriate copyright stats tags. SilkTork ( talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Copyvio checked. Nothing significant turned up. Allowable use of similar information from uslacrosse.org/sites/default/files/public/documents/rules/2016-womens-rulebook.pdf. SilkTork ( talk) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Query
- Prose is not clear and readable. There is no real flow to the text - it does read in places like notes toward an article rather than a finished article. Sometimes there is a dump of information which is hard to digest: "The European Lacrosse Federation (ELF) was established in 1995 and held the first European Lacrosse Championships that year. Originally an annual event, it is now held every four years, in between FIL's men's and women's championships. In 2004, 12 men's and 6 women's teams played in the tournament, making it the largest international lacrosse event of the year. The last men's tournament was in 2016, when 24 countries participated. England won its ninth gold medal out of the ten tournaments played. 2015 was the last women's tournament, when 17 teams participated in the Czech Republic." We have a lot of numbers and dates compressed into a small space, as well as number and date related words: first, annual. The first sentence is about establishing the Federation, but the second sentence references an annual event, which must be the Championships. Such poor construction is present throughout the article. I would suggest a thorough copyedit - see Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. When the topic has been fully researched from detailed texts (rather than snippets copied from often dubious quality websites), and the article has been built up so there is an appropriate body of information giving a clear understanding of the game, then get in touch with Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to request a copyedit. SilkTork ( talk) 10:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fail
- Broad coverage. The article is very thin, and comes across as notes toward an article, and has a number of gaps. I am left with more questions than answers. There isn't a section which describes what lacrosse is, though there are sections which describe the variations. This feels more like either a Start article: "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." Or a C class article: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." It perhaps fall somewhere between the two. SilkTork ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Reliable sources. Sources used are inadequate for a Good Article. The sources are mostly websites rather than reliable sources provided detailed and authoritative information. The websites will have got their information from a reliable source with a named author, and that is what our articles aim to do. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance on which sources are seen as reliable. SilkTork ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
General comments
- The information in the second paragraph of the History section is sourced to STX, a retail website. The website gathered that information from several texts which they list. It would be better to cite the appropriate reliable source, not the shop. SilkTork ( talk) 23:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- The sources used are quite poor. For example, the source used to support that lacrosse is "The Creator's Game" is a cultural/community website which has very little information on lacrosse - oneidaindiannation, yet that information is readily available in several informative texts: "The Creator's Game", American Indian Lacrosse, Lacrosse: A History of the Game, etc. SilkTork ( talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- The prose and contents of the article read more like notes toward an article rather than a finished article. There are several sparse two or three line paragraphs. SilkTork ( talk) 03:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
On hold
I have a number of concerns with the article in terms of depth of coverage, prose, and poor quality sourcing. I think there is information here which can be used to held build the article, though fresh research of good quality sources is needed to put flesh on the bones. A period of planning and deciding what information is needed (this is a significant topic and would benefit from a period of serious reflection on structure and content), and then written up as best as possible before requesting a copyedit, and then resubmitting for GAN. In my experience, given the amount of material on the topic, this is likely to take some months rather than a few days; however, I have known articles to be turned around in a week or two with determined contributors so I will put on hold for seven days to give the nominator and interested contributors an opportunity to consider what they wish to do. My recommendation is to take the time to do it properly than try to rush it under the pressure of a GA review. SilkTork ( talk) 10:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Fail
I am closing this GAN as not-listed. The issues not addressed, and only one edit has been made since putting the GA on hold. Once the issues have been resolved, the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)