Jump to content

Talk:Carl Lewis/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This article is certainly a decent piece of work in terms of quantity, but I have some concerns about the quality. Most specifically on a first quick read through, the referencing is nowhere near up to scratch. In the first paragraph of the body, the sentences about his parents and sister are unreferenced, and this is a theme which continues later in the article. A few of the unreferenced claims are:

  • His parents ran a local athletics club that provided a crucial influence on both Carl and his sister, Carol. She was also to become an elite long jumper, finishing 9th at the 1984 Olympics and taking bronze at the 1983 World Championships.
  • As a junior, he was one of the top long jumpers in New Jersey, and by his senior year he was one of the top long jumpers in the world.
  • In 1981, Lewis started to emerge as a dominant sprinter and long jumper. – This is also a very short one sentence paragraph, which is frowned upon.
  • The jump made Lewis the number two long jumper in history, behind only Bob Beamon, and holder of the low-altitude record.
  • For the first time, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, organized a World Championships, an event which would prove to be one of the biggest sporting events of the year worldwide. The championships boasted a then record number of participating countries for a sporting event (154), more than even the Olympics which had been plagued by politically motivated boycotts in its two previous celebrations and which would suffer another one in 1984. – An entire paragraph uncited.

These are only a small selection, and later in the article there is a claim with a "citation needed" tag too.

The references that are in place need completing or tidying up:

  • Ref #5 is missing a title.
  • Ref #7 is missing just about everything.
  • Refs #12, #15, #17, #35, #50, #79, #82 and #89 don't seem to be working, though some of those are DNS issues, so they maybe temporary.
  • The date format is inconsistent, Ref #2 uses "15 January 2015", Ref #3 uses "January 30, 2009", Ref #5 uses "13. Jan 1981" and Ref #13 uses "1961-07-01". Pick one format (probably "January 30, 2009") and stick with it.

I'm going to place this nomination on hold for a week in the hope that significant work can be done with the referencing, before continuing with a full review. Harrias talk 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: thank you for the review. I will make the fixes by 11 June, as required. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done a bunch. More to go. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, ping me here when you reckon you're done. Don't worry too much about the time scale, as long as significant work is being done, I won't fail it without notice. Harrias talk 17:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Been through it with a fine-tooth comb: improved references and removed uncited material where necessary. Over to you, please. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I look forward to it. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article could do with a bit of a copy-edit, I have provided some examples below. A fair bit of MOS work is needed too.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Most of the references that are provided are to reliable sources and laid out well, although I have identified some issues below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Although some areas might go into a little bit too much depth, I don't have any serious concerns here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Mostly fine here, but there are a few times when the article uses superlatives that might suggest a slight bias.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The articles uses images well, and they are all appropriately tagged. The image do need alternative text as per WP:ALT.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Broadly speaking, this article is in a pretty good state. It needs a fair bit of tidying around the edges and cleaning up, but I don't see any reason that it can't be done.
Prose and MOS issues
  • Generally MOS:NUM prefers that when two numbers are related, they are both written as words or numbers. So for example, "who won 10 Olympic medals, including nine gold" should really be "who won ten Olympic medals, including nine gold" and similar in the next sentence.
  • Although it is pretty well known, I'd advise writing each event out in full first time, so "100 meters" rather than 100 m etcetera. Throughout the article you should consistently use US spelling, so meters rather than metres.
  • For long jump distances, consistently use the {{convert}} template each time. At the moment some of the conversions are written out by hand in varying formats.
  • I ponder whether the "Athletic career" section could had less sub-headings? At the moment some of the sections seem a bit on the short side, and might well merge with others?
  • MOS:ABBR advises that we shouldn't use "Dr."; the name alone suffices.
  • Try to avoid short, single or two sentence paragraphs, such as the first one in the "Breakthrough in 1981 and 1982" section, the last in "Lack of endorsements and public perception" and a few others. Merge these into nearby paragraphs or expand them slightly as appropriate.
  • The prose could generally do with some tidying to help it flow a little.
Referencing issues
  • Although a lot of work has been done on referencing, some issues remain. The "Stimulant use" section in particular could do with bolstering, there are a couple of quotes in there without an inline citation.
  • A number of the references are missing some information. I have not gone through them all, but for example, #4, #5, #7 and #9 are all missing an access date.
  • Ref #15 and #54 are dead.
  • Make the formatting consistent, for example, ref #5 has the work/publisher as an italicised "iaaf.org", while ref #19 has a plain "IAAF".
  • Ref titles should adhere to the MOS, so hyphens should be replaced with endashes.
Other comments
  • Not really. Unfortunately, mostly lots of speculation that's inappropriate for a BLP. The usual things that get covered in this section eg marriage, offspring etc don't apply to Lewis, who hasn't married or had children (despite speculation to the contrary). FunkyCanute (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for the in-depth review and all your points are valid. However, I feel that your expectations are beyond those required for GA. I haven't addressed all the points you make. Please could you take a look at both the Good article criteria and what the Good article criteria are not? In particular:

  • The meaning of each sentence or paragraph must be clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently.
  • MOS compliance is very limited. MOS:NUM and MOS:ABBR (with which I have complied) are not included.
  • No requirement for consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. Accessdate, for example, is not required.
  • No requirement for removal of deadlinks.

Would you mind taking another look and letting me know your thoughts? FunkyCanute (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I must admit that I've not read that page before. There are things on there that in all honesty would probably lead me to rate an article "C" rather than "B" class. One of the points does slightly contradict itself, saying that for references "However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations." and then that one should not require "consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations." My reading of this is that the citations don't need to be complete, but should be consistently formatted at least. Harrias talk 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the requirement is for the same system ie choose between <ref></ref>, {{sfn}} or whatever other system, but not for "consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations." In other words, the markup needs to be applied consistently but the content on top doesn't have to look identical. Your point about article rating is interesting. In the years that I've been editing, I've noticed the bar getting higher. Not necessarily a bad thing but it does create a perception that few articles on WP are actually any good. More specifically, where do we go from here? What's it going to take to get this passed? FunkyCanute (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the standards have had some similar creep. I'll go through again based upon that information. I'll provide some "development" points that I'd like to see, but make it clear which I feel are needed for GA, and which would take the article beyond that. Harrias talk 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review
Double indented points are those I'd like to see, but the criteria don't require them.
  • Before Lewis, 28 ft 0 in (8.53 m) had been exceeded on two occasions by two people: Beamon and 1980 Olympic champion Lutz Dombrowski. During 1982, Lewis cleared 8.53 m (27 ft 113⁄4 in) five times outdoors are these two figures meant to be the same? If so, the conversion template has got a little confused by them being different ways around, so for clarity, could you be consistent in format between them?
  • He achieved his 10.00 s clocking the same weekend he leapt 8.61 m twice.. Conversion template for this distance please.
  • (seven if Ben Johnson's 1987 top ranking is ignored) Although this is somewhat explained later, I think a note here would be beneficial for clarity.
  • His winning leap of 8.55 m defeated silver medalist Jason Grimes by 26 cm. Conversion templates for these too please, there's a few more scattered around the article too. Given that MOS:NUM isn't a listed MOS to follow, I considered leaving this as an extension point, but I think the fact that most uses have it means the rest should for consistency.
  • He won the 200 m June 19 at the TAC/Mobil Championships.. Looks like it's missing a word, maybe add "on" between 200 m and June 19?
  • Finally, Lewis ran the anchor in the 4 × 100 m relay... Is there a wikilink we can add for "anchor"?
  • ..clocking at Modesto May 14. Again, seems to be missing a word.
  • ..to handily defeat.., He handily won gold.., ..again won handily in a time.. "Handily" seems a bit WP:FLOWERY to me.
    • A television ad..", Nike television ads Write "advertisement" out in full.
  • "they probably hurt his marketability as well." WP:ALLEGED says not to use this sort of uncertainty unless it is attributed to someone.
  • Actually, this is explained fully in the same paragraph. "If you're a male athlete, I think the American public wants you to look macho," said Don Coleman, a Nike representative
    • But Coke rescinded the offer after the Games. I'd prefer this to be written out as Coca-Cola again, as it is specifically referring to the company, but I think the usage is more common in the US than the UK, so I'm not over bothered.
  • The third sentence in the "Lack of endorsements and public perception" needs a reference.
  • ..especially in the long jump, an event he would not lose for seven more years.. Is this saying that he was completely undefeated for another seven years in the long jump? I think it could be reworded for clarity.
    • Anywhere you use "would prove" or "would beat" and similar, "would" is redundant, you could just write "proved" or "beat". It also make the tense read a little oddly, for example "..Johnson would place second." Given this took place in 1985, I think "..Johnson placed second" make more sense. But although this is technically poor writing, the GA requirements don't require a change.
  • ..after defeating Johnson in Zürich August 17. Missing word again.
  • ..for the Long Jump in 1990.. long jump doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • ..winning 65 consecutive meets. The section on 1986 notes that Emmiyan had the longest jump of the year, so presumably there were meets that Lewis didn't go to: could just be clarfied as 65 consecutive meets in which he competed?
  • Now, only a world record could defeat Lewis. Surely that isn't true, as another wind-assisted massive jump would have won, but not been a record?
  • Given there are no General references that they could be sourced to, the Achievements and honours section needs additional references to back up the information.
  • Similar for the first paragraph in the Film and television section.
  • With regards to the dead links, while the link you provided does suggest that they shouldn't necessarily be deleted, you still would need replacement sources for the information to provide verifiability. Harrias talk 15:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Harrias. I have fixed nearly everything. I will come back to this shortly. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyCanute, Harrias, it's been a couple of weeks since the last post, and nothing significant has been done to the article in the meantime. Where does this review now stand? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. If I could have another 7 days, I will see to any outstanding issues and hopefully it can then be passed and closed. FunkyCanute (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Lewis/GA2&oldid=673432724"