Talk:Teresa Perales/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• "a Diploma in Physiotherapy" -- is it correct to capitalize "diploma" here?
• This isn't an issue for GA, but the article has a lot of redlinks that don't seem likely to be created in the near future. I'd suggest removing at least some of these for now--if someone creates an article on her husband or her swimming coach, for example, they probably won't forget to come here and link this article to him--but it has no bearing on the GA criteria and won't affect this review either way.
• "1999 European Championship ... 2001 European Championships," is it correct that this was spelled differently ("s" or no "s") in 1999 and 2001?
• The lead seems rather long per WP:LEADLENGTH. Some details that could obviously be cut would include her symbolic appearance on a ballot and her appearances for charity.

Personal

• "She has visited the desert several times, and faced difficulties using the toilet, and solved this problem by creating a special chair for this which involves a robe and a hole in the bottom of the chair." -- this seems to be getting into the trivial now. If this is to be kept, I'd say that the confusing phrase "using the toilet" should be altered, since she doesn't seem to have had a toilet.

Swimming

• "50 butterfly" --should this be 50 m butterfly?
• "three bronzes in the 200 m medley and 4x100 medley relay 4x50 freestyle events" -- should this read "200 m medley, 4x100 medley relay and 4x50 freestyle events"?
• " earning a bronze in the 100 and 200 m. freestyle, bronze in the 50 m. backstroke and 50 m. freestyle, and a silver in the 50 m. butterfly." -- the "m" for meter is now being followed by a period. Is this a change in nomenclature for the races or just an error?
• "Medley Relay 4 x 50 and 4 x 50 Freestyle Relay" -- are these written correctly? (The order seems to flip)
• "Going into the 2004 Games, she was dealing with problems with her stroke rate" -- could this be moved to be in chronological order?
• "Her first medal, a gold in the 100 meters freestyle" -- should this be written 100 m for consistency?
• "By the time she earned her third medal, her personal total accounted for a third of Spain's total medals." -- is this correct? The source appears to say that Spain had 18 medals at this point: three gold, ten silver, and five bronze.
• " Her roommate at the 2012 Paralympics was Esther Morales." -- this seems extremely trivial, unless it had some results not explained here.
• " in the 4 x 100 relay est 34 point event" -- what is the "est" in this sentence? Is this the correct name for the event?
• "Before her gold medal race, she got ready by listening to music." --another detail that seems awfully trivial
• "The total made swimming helped the largest medal sport for Spaniards at the 2012 Games" -- I'm not sure what this means.
• "While in Athens, the vice president primera of Parlamento autónomo, Ana Fernández, and Argonese party leader Javier Allué visited Perales to congratulate her on her success" ; "Following one of her victories, the President of the Spanish central government, Mariano Rajoy, sent her a telegram to congratulate her on her success.[53]" --also seems quite trivial.

Awards and recognition

• " Gran Cruz del Mérito Deportivo" -- would it be possible to add a phrase of context explaining what this is?
• "The House of Aragon honoured her" -- is it possible to add a quick phrase of context for this, too? The wikipedia article suggests this dynasty is extinct/in new forms.
• "Her figure exceeds the limits sports " -- this doesn't seem like a full translation--should this be "limits of sports"?
• "the best female Best Athlete Aragoneses " -- is it necessary to say "best" twice here? Also, could this be translated as simply "Best Aragonese Athlete"?

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article has consistent issues with spelling and grammar. I've done substantial copyediting to try to fix these, but as a nonexpert in the field, I'm concerned errors are getting by me.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is somewhat over-detailed for a brief article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	The first claim I checked in a spotcheck did not appear to be factually accurate (see above), which was a worrying start.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article gives an excellent and comprehensive look at Perales' career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article contains some facts that don't appear to be of encyclopedic significance (see above).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article gives a good overview of the subject and shows impressive research. However, I'm concerned enough about the issues I found, particularly in the area of copyediting, that I'm not listing it at this time. My suggestion would be to give it a thorough doublecheck outside the GA process, both for grammatical and factual detail. The article could also use a bit of work for focus to move the reader more smoothly from event to event, and to cut some minor or extraneous detail. I hope you will renominate this one soon, though--Perales is an amazing athlete, and it's great to see her article coming along this well. Thanks for all your efforts, and your patience in waiting for a review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)