Jump to content

Talk:Teigan Van Roosmalen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTeigan Van Roosmalen has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 4, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Australian Paralympic swimmer Teigan Van Roosmalen (pictured) is legally blind and deaf?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 6, 2023.

Style

[edit]

I've re-organised the article to put the personal information at the top of the article. I've moved the citations out of the info box as they do not belong there. I have removed the citations from the lead as they also do not belong there. This should address the problems the tag addressed. --LauraHale (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I put that tag on there before I realized what disoriented me about the article. In retrospect, I think it was only that the article uses "she" too many times in consecutive sentences, as well as making use of many simple (as opposed to compound) sentences. I will come back after the article has stabilised some to see if I can reword some things, but I probably tagged the article prematurely. Joe SchmedleyTalk 03:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) No real concerns. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Fine as always Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Looks good. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Fairly balanced and focused. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Looks good Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No edit wars. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass A good article!

Discussion

[edit]

This is a good article, it doesn't belittle the subject for a disability, yet properly describes the achievements and cites accomplishments properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

2010 IPC games

[edit]

In this article it states that Teigan failed to finish in the top three in any event in the 2010 Games in Eindhoven. This appears to be true for in the pool, but her IPC profile states that she won the 5km Open water grand finale event in the S11-13 class? I can't access the cite that contests this in the article. Can someone shine light on this? Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered my own question, she did win the open waters competition, but that was because she was the only person who entered the event and thus no medals were awarded. I've changed the sentence to reflect this. Good on her though, I wouldn't fancy a 5km swim in Dutch waters. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Teigan Van Roosmalen. 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) 15:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]