Jump to content

Talk:Carol Thomas/GA1

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: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this on. It was an interesting read, and I'm happy to have learnt about Thomas and her role in women's football.

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • "[...] and 43-year club career." Reads a bit odd at the end of the sentence. Consider putting this before "her 9-year captaincy".
  • "recognised as one of the genuine but largely unsung pioneer" Initially set off a concern about neutrality, but it's supported by the sources.

Early and personal life

[edit]
  • "in 1966," Don't think you need to clarify the year, when you already mention in the same sentence that she was inspired by the 1966 World Cup.
  • "[...] her commitment and dedication [...]" this sentence reads a bit odd. Think you could cut this bit at the beginning and just have it start with "two days later", or something.
  • Wondering if this section could be broken up and the details about her later life moved to after her career. Otherwise, the chronology is a bit odd, detracting from her moving from casually playing football to playing it professionally in 1966.
  • "inspiring her football-playing grandchildren" Are they professional footballers of note? If so, might be worth linking to them. If not, consider rewriting to "inspiring her grandchildren to play football" or something similar.
  • Wainwright Society links are dead. Add archived links. (Date of publication should also be added)
  • "her support for people in Nepal" How did she support them? Materially? Through charity work?
  • Spotcheck: "She has developed a passionate interest in the people and cultures of high altitude, and in particular helping and supporting the people of Nepal especially since the tragic earthquake of April 2015." So the source doesn't elaborate further.
  • As you say, no more info. Kingsif (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dedicated to English women's football before the Women's Super League" Before?
  • "Hull City Ladies" Clarify that it's Hull City Ladies F.C.

Club career

[edit]
  • "Women's football was still banned in England at the time" This could probably do with a bit more context added.
  • Spotcheck: "The works leagues were the lifeblood of football for men and particularly for women, with their sport officially banned from 1921 until 1971 after the FA ruled “the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged”." This is quite some institutional sexism. Would definitely be worth adding context about this. At least mention that the ban was lifted in 1971, otherwise it's unclear how she was even able to begin playing professionally.
  • Added a link to the UK section of the bans of women's football article, and mentioned when it was repealed. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of this section, combined with other paragraphs from the previous section, demonstrates to me that I think there could be room for a "Later life and career" section later on.

International career

[edit]
  • "[...] with most of the squad's Northern players unable to go." Why? It seems significant that this was the only game she missed, but there's no explanation.
  • Spotcheck: "Thomas only missed one international against Wales in the Isle of Man, just two days before the 1985 Mundialito – along with most of the northern-based players due to logistical and financial restraints – during that period (what would that equate to in this modern era?)."
  • I've added part of that as a quote. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you cite a specific page number for Owen 2005?
  • "on to the best football of her career" Maybe "best moment" instead of "best football"?
[edit]
  • No notes.

References

[edit]
  • You reference a few local papers here, without any links or unique identifiers. Are there any archives you could link to or more information you could provide in order to aid in verifiability?
  • Some of these were present before I began work on the article; I have a friend in Yorkshire who managed to get some library scans for me to check anything that was solely sourced to one, but I don't have them presently. I could look into possible archive links. Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure your references are as complete as possible. Check for missing publications, dates, authors, etc.

Checklist

[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    A couple minor prose issues here and there.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Only word to watch I noticed was backed up by multiple sources, so I didn't take issue with it.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Citations should be filled out to be as complete as possible, for verification purposes. There's a couple cases of dead links and incomplete citations holding this back.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    All spotchecks verify the information they're cited to.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig flags a few bits, but they're mostly either quotes or small parts of larger sentences.[1]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Only part that seemed non-neutral to me was based in reliable sources.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No reverts since its creation in 2016.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Image in infobox is original work licensed under CC 4.0
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image in infobox still lacks alt text and a caption.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    There's some minor issues that are holding this back, mostly issues with verifiability. Once these have been dealt with, I'd be happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite reached the Wainwright Society refs, but otherwise addressed all points - would you like to look over the changes? Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks great, fantastic work! Well done finding archived versions of those local papers too. At this point I'm happy to make the final couple wee adjustments myself and pass the review. Thanks for putting the time into this article. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carol_Thomas/GA1&oldid=1162155239"