Jump to content

Talk:Denise O'Sullivan

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denise O'Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Denise O'Sullivan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments There's quite a bit to fix here, so the first pass:

  • Some overlinking in there, e.g. North Carolina Courage, Chicago Red Stars, Paul Riley etc etc.
Pedantically, the Women's National League club in Cork was independent and called "Cork Women's FC" until they merged with the men's League of Ireland club Cork City in 2014. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She enjoyed" did she?
  • Newspapers, magazines etc should be in italics.
  • Where is height/date of birth referenced?
  • " admired local hero" reads like a tabloid.
  • " in The 100 Best Female Footballers In The World, listed " our article seems to italicise this, and how runs it, what's the provenance?
  • Spaced hyphens in ref titles should be en-dashes.

That's enough for a start, on hold for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to re-work the lead a bit once we get further along in the review. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table of goals needs to comply with MOS:DTT with row and col scopes.
  • Consistent formatting in refs, i.e. sometimes BBC Sport is italicised.
  • Newspapers, e.g. The Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald etc should be in italics.
  • What's the strategy on linking publishers/works in the refs, looks a bit random to me.
  • Is it The 42 or the 42 or The42.ie or The42...?
  • The above points re ref formats are specific examples: you need to go through all 76 of them and check they are compliant with MOS and consistent with one another.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above I'm the last person to rush someone else ;) --SuperJew (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some comments on sources, what makes the following WP:RS (pardon my ignorance)?

  • Cork Beo
  • Extratime.ie (and why isn't that Extratime.com in ref 6?)
  • Cork Beo is used in combination with other refs (just added another ref from Sydney Morning Herald to support the "junkyard" title). Anyways you can see their reliability under About Us page. Or I might be misunderstanding and I would appreciate if you give an example of evidence that a source meets RS, say for The Guardian? --SuperJew (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat: Let me know if there's something specific in WP:RS you have questions/concerns about for any of those The Rambling Man. Hmlarson (talk)
  • Regarding Extratime.ie (seems they moved their domain to Extratime.com but still reference themselves as Extratime.ie), they say about them Extratime.ie is the leading provider of information on the League of Ireland. Established in 2008 and run as a volunteer driven portal, the enterprise has gained recognition domestically and internationally as a provider of accurate,innovative and timely news and statistics on the Irish domestic league and associated events such as international fixtures.. Again, I'm not sure what evidence you're looking for The Rambling Man, and seems Hmlarson isn't either. It would be helpful if you could provide an example of demonstration for a source you know meets RS. --SuperJew (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can drop Cork Beo as it is used in combination with other refs, so for the info it supports it's reliable enough. Regarding extratime.ie, I tried to search on google, but it's hard to find stuff as all the results are what extratime.ie published. But I might be searching wrong. --SuperJew (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested the WP:RSN, it may have been discussed before or there may be knowledgable people there who can help, and once something is given a green light there, it tends to be a healthy precedent to point at for all future conversations around reliability for a given source. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I added a question there. --SuperJew (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is the Daily Mirror supposed to be "verboten" @The Rambling Man:? At your linked list of deprecated sources it only says there is no consensus (and deprecated ≠ verboten, although I don't want to open that can of worms). If we exclude every single source published by Trinity Mirror, as you seem to be implying, we would be ruling out half the local newspapers in the UK and Ireland. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, it uses the warning triangle there. But if we can avoid using tabloid papers, so much the better. I note "Cork Beo"'s own "ethics" statement uses the phrase "The maintenance of high editorial standards is at the core of the Irish Mirror's business philosophy." so if this is the Irish Mirror then we can do better. I never mentioned Trinity Mirror. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But honestly, I've asked for evidence that both these two are WP:RS. It's incumbent on the nominator(s) to demonstrate that, not for me to demonstrate that they are not reliable sources. If you want this review punted back to GAN, by all means that's fine. I'm sure another editor will simply just give it the green light and we can all move on with our lives. I just asked a simple (very common) question and was met with hostility which I don't need in my life at this time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No hostility intended - I just asked a question for my own clarification then you seem to have gone in a huff! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @The Rambling Man: Based on my previous interactions with Hmlarson and with BbDS, I don't think there was any hostility intended by them. They're both hardworking editors who are aiming to build this Wikipedia, especially improving the scope of women's soccer, bettering pages, and making sure stuff is notable and well-fleshed (not just a bunch of presumed notability stubs as some editors do). On a personal note, I definitely did not intend any hostility, and I do apologise if it felt that way. I just honestly do not have experience in determining if a source is RS or not and wanted to understand. And I really appreciate the time you're putting into this review to help better the article.

Now regarding the questions in hand:
  • Regarding the Cork Beo source, it was used in two places. In one of them I completely replaced it with a different source (The Sydney Morning Herald) and in the other I added another source supporting the saying. So I think it is irrelevant if it isn't fully RS - it is RS enough to be a supporting reference with another one (I think we should keep it as it words the point sourced better).
  • Regarding the Extratime.ie sources, I put in the question for WP:RSN as you kindly suggested, and you can see there that the users who answered say it is an RS for soccer and Irish soccer players.
I hope this takes care of the issues at hand :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments on the article and refs:

Then I think we're there! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Rambling Man - just noticed your change on the Talk page to Second Opinion - but you've not included: "Be sure the review page specifies in what way you are looking for a second opinion." (#3 at WP:GAN/I#2O). Are you sure you don't want the credit for the review you've already done all the work for? If you don't, can you please indicate that the second opinion reviewer should be looking at specifically? Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Denise O'Sullivan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

GA Review

[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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denise_O%27Sullivan&oldid=1208430871"