Jump to content

Talk:Megan Rapinoe/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: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments please forgive me if my BritEng football brain queries some of the US-Soccer sayings here, I'll do my best to keep "in universe".

  • Excellent references, but please check those with bare URLs, e.g. 41, 47, and AVOID SHOUTING in the titles.
  • No need to repeat her first name, e.g. in the info box caption.
  • Lead could use a little expansion to cover other sections not summarised, e.g. personal life, endorsements, awards etc.
  • Conversely, "She is the first player, male or female, to score a Goal Olimpico at the Olympic Games." is in the lead, but not mentioned anywhere else.
  • Is there a link for us non-US readers for "honour roll"?
  • What is "Region IV"?
  • Touch of over linking going on, Elk Grove Pride is linked in two consecutive sections.
  • "two and half hours" ok, so Brit Eng we'd say "two-and-a-half" so this reads odd to me, but if you're sure it's ok in USEng, no action required.
  • Usually I'd expect to see abbreviations or initialisms explained before they're used, e.g. NSCAA...
  • "ending Anterior cruciate ligament injury" no need for capital A.
  • " season-ending anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)" no need to relink, and you should have abbreviated it first time round to avoid repeating it this time round.
  • NSCAA and NCAA are both over linked in the same section.
  • " 20-2 " WP:DASH needs an en-dash here.
  • "Rapinoe warming up before a MagicJack match, 2011." no period required.
  • "Club career" section, really dislike the tabloid newspaper style summaries "The WPS Years", "Making an Impact...", not just for the foul overcapitalisation but for the inherent POV imparted. Just stick to year ranges.
  • "Megan Rapinoe with Olympique Lyonnais." -> "Rapinoe with Olympique Lyonnais"
  • "she.. she. She... she..." in the WPS years. A little repetitive.
  • "MagicJack" or "magicJack"? Be consistent.
  • "with W-League (Australia) " I'm sure (Australia) isn't in the title of the league.
  • "scoring one goal against FC Malmö and a goal and an assist " implies you "score" an "assist", is that right?
  • "0–9–1" is that won 0, drew 9, lost 1? Not clear to an international reader.
  • "with 5 goals" five.
  • Houston, Texas is overlinked.
  • Check other captions, incomplete sentences do not need a period.
  • "of it." [41]" no spaces before refs.
  • Brazil team is over linked.
  • "Harry Glickman Professional Female Athlete of the Year award" is this notable? If so, why doesn't it have a Wikipedia article? If not, why include it?
  • "Megan Rapinoe corner kick " remove Megan. And add "takes a" between Rapinoe and corner kick.

Formatting, Refs

[edit]
  • Don't hide tables by default.
  • Avoid the use of hash to mean number per WP:HASH.
  • I think the hash is used commonly on these tables so that the column is not a lot wider than it's actual contents - therefore conserving space. The guideline states "avoid" - in this case, I think it's appropriate. Hmlarson (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horrendous colour scheme in the table, avoid.
  • While I tend to agree, this comment is subjective. Can you provide a link to an article with a table color scheme that is more pleasing to the eye? Hmlarson (talk)
  • Match Reports -> Match reports.
  • What does 2.1, 2.2 etc mean under the hash? No idea.
  • Scorelines should use en-dash to separate them, not hyphen.
  • Sorry, I'm not comfortable changing a template that likely affects several thousands of articles for this review. Feel free to make the template change yourself. Hmlarson (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, well the article has problems with its formatting as a result of the use of this template. The article doesn't need to use the template. In fact, it'd be much better if it didn't. I'm not sure many (any) men's international goals are shown in this way, with incorrect formatting and hideous colour schemes. In fact, that whole "International goals" section needs to be fixed as the template its using is incomprehensibly difficult to update, renders stuff which even you find hard to explain, and is entirely unnecessary, just stick to a normal plain table please. Also, if you stick with the current formatting, please explain the methodology behind the sorting of the "Result" column please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of articles on women's international players that I've worked on use this table formatting, including the four other ones that have passed GAR in the last year or so. While I personally am not opposed to discussion about changing this universally, it seems rather fruitless to do it on this one alone without anyone else's input - particularly the editors who work on updating them month after month. Hmlarson (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, but I'm confused why anyone would use such intricate markup to achieve something a very simple table would achieve. Maintaining this template approach makes the article virtually impenetrable for the rest of the world to update. Should those three or four other editors move on, we're doomed. I suggest avoiding using the template altogether, or at the very least making it accessible and MOS-compliant. Otherwise this review will stall (although I'm sure you'll find someone who'll pass it in due course...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know how to locate the template page for sortfbs - I'd like to take a look just out of curiosity, but can't figure out how to locate it. Hmlarson (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harvardton: - would you be able to speak to why the sortfbs table is needed in the International Goals tables frequently used on women international football articles? What are your thoughts on removing it and just using plain text for scores similar to many men's articles? Thanks for any input you can provide. I know you've worked diligently on updating these tables and wanted to get your input before making changes. Hmlarson (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also it would be helpful to understand how it is supposed to sort and what the columns mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sortfbs is actually quite simple. It enables sortability based on goal difference and goal scored. Without this template, using plain text, 10-0 will appear between 1-0 and 2-0. It is a nice way to view the scores; to see which match is tougher; or if a goal is a game winner, for example, a 3-2 score in a 3-2 game opposed to 3-0 in a 4-0 game. The sort key gives goal difference the maximum weight followed by goal difference in penaly-shoot-out, followed by goal scored in the match, followed by goal scored in penalty-shoot-out. It is probably easier to calculate as a concatenated string of 2 characters substrings: concat(substring(50 + goalDifferenceInMatch), substring(50 + goalDifferenceInPenaltyShootout), ".", substring(goalScoredInMatch), substring(goalScoredInPenaltyShootout)) There is a "5" at the end of this string if the match ended in 90 minutes; which puts matches ending in extra-time before those ending in regulation; indicating a tougher match. Not sure, how sortability of scores would not be useful; besides it really isn't complicated. If it is of over-bearing complexity, I would not be updating these tables year round. Besides, I refrain from updating tables which didn't already use sortfbs. I would encourage the use of score sorting; it really helps in understanding and appreciating the athletes or the team. Thank you all; I will keep updating these goals tables with sortfbs until a consensus is reached against its use. Harvardton (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template is using ndash now. Harvardton (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Of course I never doubted that sortability is a good thing, but you really need to explain to the reader how the table columns sort. This should take the form of an explanatory footnote. It's important because it's not obvious to me (and I've worked with tables for seven or eight years) how the sorting works, so how an inexperienced editor is supposed to understand it, I know not. Also the colour scheme is not explained anywhere, nor is the mysterious "hash" column.... Plus why have dates in machine-readable format? Most of the consumers of Wikipedia are humans with eyes that read dates like July 4, or 19 January, not 2014-07-04 or 2013-01-19..... Think of the reader..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harvardton: Thank you for updating the template. Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harvardton: Can the dates be changed to month-day-year and still be sortable? Or is that the reason they are ISO? Also, what are your thoughts on updating the color scheme? I think adding a footnote about the # column and color scheme would be helpful as TRM suggests. I can work on this later - let me know if you have any input there or would like to tackle it yourself. Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: Do you have a link to a preferred color scheme or specific ideas regarding that issue? That seems more of a subjective call to me unless you're aware of a guideline or policy - but I'm open to making the table more appealing and easier to read. Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's not the colours themselves that I object to, more the fact that they aren't explained anywhere, and they don't meet WP:ACCESS clearly, in other words, if you're colour blind, you can't necessarily distinguish one colour from another so you miss the point, or worse, you mis-interpret the colours. There's also an issue with the over-use of flags, e.g. it's not actually necessary to put a flag next to the location of the match, it's actually less relevant than the icon for the opposition's nationality, even though that's reported second. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For explanation on colors and other code on the goals table, please expand the Key table under the International goals above the goals table. As for the colors; it differs on different computer monitor. I agree a lighter shade would be less glaring; will look into this. (The explanations are in the Keys.) I will add the notes on the sorting schemes. As for the date, I have started to use, for example Mar 3, 2014 recently. Different readers from different parts of the world would prefer different date format; Mar 3, 2014 would be close to universal. ISO format was the easiest and doesn't take too much space. In any event, I am inclined to move to Mar 3, 2014 format. Harvardton (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made the modifications for Dates and Notes on sorting. Since the Notes on sorting took the place where the Match reports were, the Match reports are now in the Reference section much like Aly Wagner#References and Heather O'Reilly#References. Color schemes to be fixed later, since I am not sure what change is needed here; it isn't perfect but it helps to see the kind of competition at a glance. Harvardton (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting better, and I'm sorry if it appears to be sidetracking the GAN, but if the article must use this structure, it should be right. A few other things, can you make the dates full dates, i.e. not Jan but January, for consistency with the rest of the article (and other articles the template is used in). Also, we should avoid the use of hash per WP:HASH to represent "number". In fact, that field is oddly formatted too, it should use a slash, much more commonly used as a "of", i.e. 1/2 meaning 1 of 2, 2/2 meaning 2 of 2. The notes look like pseudo-code to me, they should be written in human-English. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man:I don't think the Notes are necessary as the key explains the columns and color codes. I've never seen a sortable table with explanation about what sorting means. If you have, perhaps a link to one would help make your instructions clearer as this particular point doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Agree on date and # column. Thanks @Harvardton: for helping with this. Hmlarson (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sure, if the sorting is obvious, no notes needed, but per the explanation of the curious equation used and that this article insists on using, it needs explanation. Thousands of other football lists have sortable tables but don't use this template. Also I note the comments regarding the odd hash column have been ignored. MOS doesn't like it, and using 1.1 to mean 1 of 1 is simply counter intuitive. Also please take heed of the advice regarding overuse of flags and undue prominence of match location. The opposition is far more relevant than the location of the match, it should come first and the location does not need a flag, and the format of US locations should be consistent, commas etc. and replace the hash with No. Or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're being particularly harsh and dictatorial when it's not at all warranted. The updates to the table are a work in progress. Thanks for your patience. Hmlarson (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this exercise is to make the article including the goals table more readable. At this point, the modifications to the goals table have made it much less readable. Each goal is now taking multiple rows. The first 3 columns indicating sequence, date and goal number is taking up 1/3 of the width. It is unnecessary to make the table conform to, in my opinion, standards which are intended for paragraphs. Other goals table do not provide as much information. I was advised by someone in wiki environment to provide encyclopedic information, not just summary and incomplete information which are easily found at other sources on the internet. Quite frankly, the current format of the goals table is less pleasing to view. Comprehensive information and not format should be the purpose of these encyclopedic articles. Right now this goals table is not in uniformity with other goals table of other women athlete. Harvardton (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flagicons and the first name of the athletes are gone, to make room for the expanded date, etc. ISO format for date should be the preferred and standard format for tabulated information; after all, ISO is a standards organization. September 12, 2009 may be more readable but not more informative than 2009-09-12 in a table; don't agree that it has to be spelt out. Besides, not everyone writes month before day, given the world-wide readership of wikipedia. Harvardton (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good work, thank you. Of course ISO date format is fine if you're a computer and want an easy sort, but we have templates for date sorting and human-readable dates are much preferred across Wikipedia articles, even in tables. Yes, we have mdy and dmy, but a switch could easily be implemented using a paramter such as dmy=true or similar. Thanks for your effots thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One match report has a full set of reference data including retrieval dates etc, all the others don't, be consistent. And comprehensive.
  • Why are award names in bold?
  • Check refs, e.g. "New York Times" should be "The New York Times".

A few comments to be addressed, not a million miles away, so I'll put it on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

[edit]
  • Where are the statistics in the infobox referenced?
  • That's all very well, but a cursory check comes up with 28 games and 8 goals which isn't what's in the info box. Also ref 23 seems dead, and I couldn't find the magicJack appearances or goals in refs 23 through 27. Looks like you need to directly reference these statistics in the info box rather than rely on the article referencing it, which it currently doesn't at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "crafty" style of play, is that a quote? It sounds a little POV. Do you just mean skilful?

Nearly there. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you've added over 4k to the article, destabilising it. Perhaps we should wait before trying for GA if that's what's going to happen at the moment? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not mimicking you. I appreciate your efforts. I've worked to improve the article. It's absolutely your choice whether you want to continue the GAR or not. Thanks again. Hmlarson (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I'm sure you're used to mind games on this thing - the same folks that recently attempted to bully you did the same to a long-time, highly valued contributor and now she's gone. I understand it's hard to tell when someone's being sincere or sarcastic on wikipedia, but you're perception was a bit off here. 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, seemed a bit odd that you copied and pasted the precise verbiage I used above. My perception was simply to wonder why. And "Do what you like." while neutral at a glance, is not the way to engage a reviewer who has spent literally hours trying to help with an article, an important one at that, only to find it massively increased overnight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't copy and paste "your sentence" and this is getting ridiculous. I'm sorry I happened to use the same words - it happens. This is distracting and frankly there's better work to be done. Thanks again. Hmlarson (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • just a coincidence, I'm sure. Perhaps deal with the next raft of comments, and we can move on. The Rambling Man (talk)|

Further comments

[edit]
  • "also had seven recorded game-winning" why not "also scored seven game-winning goals"?
  • " 10 goals and 2 assists in just 11 matches" -> "ten goals and two assists in eleven matches". MOSNUM/POV.
  • "to score 25 goals and 15 assists in just two seasons" remove "just" again.
  • "After taking her time recovering" ing... ing... "her time to recover..."
  • "one goal during the last touch" not sure what this means, do you mean she scored "with" the last touch?
  • "many other top players" POV.
  • "for two games.[40] In her second and final game" don't need "and final".
  • " the 2011-12 season" en-dash needed.
  • The following sentence is somewhat irrelevant to Rapinoe since she only played twice for them.
  • "4–3–3 formation" would be helpful to non-experts to link this somehow.
  • "2012-13 quarter-final against" en-dash required.
  • " to Lyon's 5–0 final scoreline" it wasn't Lyon's scoreline, it was the scoreline. It was Lyon's 5–0 victory perhaps.
  • "quarter-final" vs "semifinal", be consistent with hyphenation.
  • Do you always "serve" an assist? We always "provide" assists...
  • "turned their goal-scoring ability up a notch " reads like a tabloid newspaper.
  • "including one in the third place match victory against Brazil.[6][68] The team finished in third place at the tournament" The second sentence is redundant.
  • "subsequently missed the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup or the 2008 Beijing Olympics" do you mean "and"?
  • "the team... the team... " repetitive.
  • "she subbed in" colloquialism.
  • No need to link "microphone".
  • The 2011 section you abbreviate United States to U.S. pretty much throughout, but in all other sections tend to stick with United States. Looks odd.
  • What is "completing a cross"?
  • Two uses of "dramatic" is a little POV, unless someone in a source has stated as such.
  • "Alex Morgan" is overlinked.
  • " had a career-high 8 goals and 12 assists" is this really relevant? The US played more matches that year, didn't they?
  • "despite playing in only two of the four matches in which the United States played" playing ...played... repetitive.
  • Ref titles need to be checked for hyphen/en-dash issues in scorelines per WP:DASH.
  • And no need to replicated SHOUTING there either.
  • Some refs now incomplete, e.g. ref 73.
  • Inconsistencies, is it ESPN or ESPN?
  • Check other works, e.g. Huffington Post is The Huffington Post.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_Rapinoe/GA1&oldid=598472238"