Talk:2022 AFL Women's season 7 Grand Final/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Qualification[edit]
- I don't think there's any need for the Finals series bracket, as this is already featured in the main article AFL Women's season seven. Especially considering it includes the Grand Final, it is very oddly placed at the beginning of this article.
- There's some weight issues here. The second paragraph gives a lot of attention to the Demons, but only a single sentence to the Lions. More detail about Brisbane's progress should be added.
- "It was also the first AFLW grand final to be played in November." Why is this notable?
Venue[edit]
- Words to watch: Remove "however,"
- Why weren't The Gabba and Metricon Stadium available? It doesn't say why.
- Cited source and the main article itself refer to "Brighton Homes Arena" as "Springfield Central Stadium". This should probably be used instead.
- Did this controversy lead anywhere? The way it's written, it reads odd to just end with the alternative suggestion and not how they pressed forward with the decision to use Brighton Homes.
- "which led to many suggesting Marvel Stadium"
- Spotcheck: Cited source doesn't say "many", it specifies that it's Tom Elliott saying this. It's misleading to suggest it was a lot of people when only one person was quoted as saying this.
- Move the single sentence paragraph to the end of the previous paragraph.
Broadcast and entertainment[edit]
- Second and third paragraphs could probably be merged together. Single line paragraphs look a bit odd.
- Consider integrating this and the above sections into subsections of a broader "Background" section.
Teams[edit]
- Emergencies should probably be integrated into the tables, they look a bit odd just sitting there below the tables.
- Cite the source in the title of the tables, rather than having "Source:[15]" at the bottom.
Umpires[edit]
- Consider integrating this as a subsection of the Teams section, per similar section in the AFL grand final article
- Could you build this into a table?
Match summary[edit]
- Comment: "The match commenced in 30 °C heat" Wow. I do not envy these women playing in that kind of heat. I find it difficult to even think when it gets over 28.
- Nice work with providing links for the specialist terminology, it really helps for context. Is there a link you could provide for "major"?
- This section is very nicely structured, with a paragraph for each of the quarters.
- "Melbourne broke loose [...]" This is quite a long run-on sentence, consider breaking it up a wee bit.
- "Melbourne's Tahlia Gillard managed to keep the Lions' tall forward Jesse Wardlaw quiet" What does "quiet" mean here?
- "The umpires injected a note of farce into the game" This reads a bit editorialised, consider rewriting.
- "therefore" no need for this, cut.
Scoreboard[edit]
- No notes
Best on ground medal[edit]
- No notes
Lead and infobox[edit]
- Lead is rather short, could you add to it a little? One or two more sentences should be fine.
Checklist[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- Some of the references are incomplete. I've noted examples of the author not being cited (e.g. [3] foxsports) and others of the dates not being cited. Please make sure all references are complete.
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- One noted case of an attributable statement being vaguely cited to "many people". This needs fixing.
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Earwig only notes that the umpires section is lifted closely from its cited source. This can be fixed by converting it to a table, per the suggestion.
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- There's a couple moments of editorialising, but nothing major, or outside the bounds of how this sport is written about. More weight should be given to the Lions in the qualifications section though.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable since January 2023.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Logo falls under non-free use. Rest of the photographs are original works shared under the Creative Commons license.
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Alt text should be provided for each of the images.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall: