Wikipedia:Peer review/Yip Pin Xiu/archive1

Yip Pin Xiu

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean swimmer with muscular dystrophy, who won two medals and set two world records at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out issues (such as prose issues) that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. BLP issues are a major concern, especially considering that she is a minor and a private figure. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Road Wizard's comments

I have only made a cursory review of the article so far, but here are some initial thoughts to consider:

• Would the article benefit from an infobox?
• Is there a free image available to illustrate the article? This could be an image of the whole swimming team if there isn't a picture of Yip Pin Xiu on her own.
• Would conversion of the citations to using Citation templates be beneficial?

These three are all fairly minor and shouldn't stop the article from passing GA, but they may be worth considering anyway. I will take another look through the article later to see if there are any more substantial problems. Road Wizard (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is so short that an infobox would contain little information, most of which would be already in the lead section. It did not take me long to find a photo of her; isn't she cute? But, if I uploaded it, the anti-fair use brigade would delete it pretty quickly. As for citation templates, I will consider your suggestion, but I prefer not to use them because they make editing more difficult for exopedians. Thanks for your suggestions, though. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As this is a pre-GA peer review I have based the following comments on the Good article criteria.

1. Well-written

Prose issues;

• "She is the youngest of three children to her parents" - who else would she be the youngest of 3 children to other than her parents? May need a little rewording/pruning.

Done Changed to "youngest of three children in her family". Does that adequately address your concern? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Manual of style issues;

• Lead: The lead is quite short and could provide a better summary of the article - perhaps a brief mention of the other sporting events she participated in other than the Paralympics or the influence her success is having on changing public perceptions of disabled people in Singapore.

Noted Will expand the lead with a sentence about the impact of her successes on disabled sports in Singapore. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Added a sentence about the subsequent debate to the lead. Feel free to improve the sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Layout: Generally well laid out though the last two paragraphs may benefit from being placed in a separate section (they do not particularly relate to her swimming career). Other optional features to consider for inclusion are navboxes, to help readers navigate between related articles (e.g. a Paralympics or Singaporean sport navbox may be of interest to readers, if available), and perhaps an infobox (as mentioned earlier).

You mean like the "Films by Jack Neo" template at the bottom of I Not Stupid Too? Sounds like a good idea. What do you think of splitting the Swimming career section into subsections entitled Early career (paragraphs 2-3), Paralympics (paragraph 4) and Post-Paralympic impact (paragraphs 5-6)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More sections may be useful, but we need to be careful not to go too far. Two or three paragraphs is a good target to aim for when looking at the minimum size of a section. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Two paragraphs? Perhaps paragraphs 2-3 should go into an Early career section, while paragraphs 4-5 should go into a "2008 Summer Paralympics" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jargon: What is MCYS? I think I can guess what it is through reading the article, but the acronym should first appear next to the term it represents. What is "Project 0812"? This should either be explained in detail within the text or alternatively a brief explanation in the text with a link to a more detailed article.

Done I had forgotten to mention the acronym the first time the full name was mentioned. The references do not thoroughly explain Project 0812, but they provided enough information for a half-sentence summary. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

I am unable to access any of the supplied references, but all the key paragraphs have at least one citation flagged. This should allow editors familiar with the subject to check the validity of any claims. Links to online sources may be useful both to editors and readers if available, though offline sources are also fully acceptable.

Thanks for your comments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

I am not an expert in the field of sports biographies or knowledgeable about this particular individual. However, as a general reader, it seems to cover most aspects I would expect to see. The article is a little short and could benefit from expansion if possible, though the shortness can be justified on grounds of the presumed age of the subject. I am aware that the date of birth is part of an ongoing BLP dispute, but it may be wise to give the reader at least some indication of her general age (would the year of birth be an acceptable compromise until the BLP dispute is resolved?)

Little is known about her, so I can hardly expand the article. That is why it will never be an FA. If the BLP policy lets me mention her year of birth without a reference, I would be happy to do so. I removed a sentence about her upcoming (now finished) O Levels as fluff, but if it had stayed in the article, it would help readers (especially Singaporeans) infer her age. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the shortness of the article can be justified by the age of the subject. If she progresses any further in her career it would be logical for her article to grow over time. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of years later, if I still edit Wikipedia, I will look for newspaper articles detailing her more recent (currently future, what an oxymoron!) career. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral

The article is written slightly on the positive side of neutrality, but this is most likely due to a lack of negative issues in this young person's life rather than any bias in the text. As there has been no suggestion of non-neutral writing on the article this shouldn't prove a problem in a formal GA review.

I have not found any negative issues so far. If I find any, I would be cautious about mentioning them due to the minefield that is BLP. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for negative points to be added to the article. My comment is simply a review against the criteria - the article reads slightly more positively than most biographies I have seen but that it shouldn't pose a problem for passing GA. I also put forward a possible reason why the positive tone is correct in this instance. No further action is needed on this point unless additional source material becomes available. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. No action taken. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Stable

The article is currently subject to an unresolved content dispute with potential WP:BLP issues. Unless the dispute is resolved in some manner, the article will fail this aspect of the GA criteria.

I hope the BLP dispute will quickly be settled. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The dispute should be resolved soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

There are no images on this article. Images are optional, but a formal GA review will ask whether it is possible to add any. If possible please add images relevant to the subject or prepare a reasoned justification to provide to the GA review when questioned.

See above for my comments regarding images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Though it is not specifically mentioned in the Good Article criteria, the abundance of red links in the article may be of concern to the GA reviewer. Where possible, articles should be created for any subjects that a reader may wish to explore further. Road Wizard (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Six redlinks! Oh dear. I blame systemic bias. Wikipedia needs better coverage of disabled sports. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of blame or bias. It is a matter of article standards. A Good Article is one that provides the reader with answers to the majority of the questions they may on a subject. As there are several red links in the article on key subjects it is likely that a reader will not have their questions answered. While 6 links doesn't sound like much, I have seen a smaller number of links cause problems for larger articles at the review stage; on a short article like this one, 6 links equates to about 18% of all the links in the text.

This should be seen as a spur to improve the coverage of disabled sports. Allowing articles to reach GA status without attempting to resolve the difficult problems of systemic bias would be tantamount to sweeping the issue under the carpet. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is to blame for systemic bias; it exists because most Wikipedians are American. I agree that "this should be seen as a spur to improve the coverage of disabled sports" and will write about another Singaporean disabled sportsperson, William Tan, as part of our National Day DYK Project. As for the redlinks, I will see what I can do; I know almost nothing about those competitions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jacklee's comments

Reviewers would like to note the discussion on certain aspects of the article taking place at "Talk:Yip Pin Xiu#Three questions about Jacklee's edits", and comment on those aspects either on the article's talk page or here. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing peer review

Since this has received only one review, by Road Wizard, I shall close this peer review to focus on resolving the BLP dispute and other unfinished business, as well as preparing I Not Stupid Too (which is also on peer review). Thanks for the helpful review, Road Wizard; feel free to post follow-up comments on the article talk page. On 1 January 2009, I will file a new peer review - by then, all the issues should (hopefully) be resolved. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)