Jump to content

Talk:Elle Leonard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeElle Leonard was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
January 6, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
February 11, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 15, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Meyers and Elle Leonard donated US$500,000 toward the renovation of the site of their first date?
Current status: Former good article nominee

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 05:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elle Leonard; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hook interesting, both cited and verifiable. Peculiar QPQ, but is indeed 2nd of 10. Article new and long enough with good referencing. No copyvio detected. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA1 Review

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

Reviewer: Eurohunter (talk · contribs) 17:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I started review. Comments will be below. Review within 2023 GAN Backlog Drives. Eurohunter (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  1. I think for this article length lead could be extended. Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and early life

[edit]
  1. "Leonard began playing competitive basketball in third grade at PGSL" - what is "PGSL"? Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy

[edit]
  1. "The Leonards donated $20,000 to the Armed Forces program for the American Red Cross." - is this possible to add links? Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. Add links to archived versions in references. Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reference number 2 - remove capitals. Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Redirects in references. Names changed over the years or are they incorrect? Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Infobox - there is number of children - wouldn't it be better to add directly whole name of son? Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be a discussion about the purpose of this article?

[edit]
off-topic discussion

There is a conversation to be had.SlimeSeason5 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that any of the information in the lead explains her notability. – Editør (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even a high school athlete can pass WP:GNG for notability. She is a notable athlete in this regard, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If she is only notable because she was a high school athlete, I think the lead should better represent that (focus on that) than it does now. – Editør (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of information which is trivial in nature. And her time as an athlete during high school, at least as it is conveyed through what's been written here, is not particularly notable. SlimeSeason5 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Editør, I must say that as a page creator of about 1500 WP pages, I find this procedure quite odd. Something like this usually starts as a WP:PROD, WP:CSD or WP:AFD. The purpose of the WP:LEAD is not to justify WP:N, it is to summarize the main body. The main body can only exist if there are facts supported by WP:RS, which are usually presented as WP:ICs. As long as a couple of those ICs are primarily about her she passes WP:GNG. You are confusing importance and notability. There are probably more important subjects who fail WP:GNG. By passing GNG, she is notable whether or not she meets your subjective assessment of her importance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I was unclear in making my point. You say that she is notable as an athlete. Then why is she not identified as "former athlete" first instead of third and why isn't half of the lead about her accomplishments in sports? – Editør (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Editør, Again, I repeat very odd discussion. I think you are quibbling about something. The article says former athlete in the MOS:FIRST sentence. I believe that opening WP:LEAD sentences often describe the current or most recent role first. E.g., Phil Jackson and Pat Riley are not as notable for the first item mentioned in their LEADs as other roles. The LEAD summarizes every section of the article as it should. What the heck are you quibbling about?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to take my comments as constructive criticism, so I don't want to further contribute to this discussion. If the lead is not improved, I recommend to the reviewer to fail this nomination. Please don't contact me again about this article. – Editør (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Editør, The reviewer can read WP:LEAD for themselves and assess whether the article follows it. I don't see any point you made that shows it does not. Thank you for declaring you are finally ending this waste of time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Editør, to be clear, I have done my best to respond to your very peculiar queries.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop contacting me about this article. – Editør (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

[edit]

@TonyTheTiger and Eurohunter: this has been stalled for over two months. Is there something preventing it from moving forward?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:53, November 6, 2023 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

[edit]

How is this person notable under WP:GNG? The lede asserts she is notable as an athlete, but she never competed beyond high school and her highest honor was as a fifth-team, all-state basketball and volleyball player. The article has lots of citations, but none of them qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Articles that simply mention her as the wife of an NBA player don't cut it. And interviews such as this aren't considered WP:INDEPENDENT. Unless someone can point to some actual SIGCOV, this should go to AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Hi! I'm reviewing this article for GA and before I continue my review, I would like to be sure the article won't get deleted. Do you plan to bring it to AfD? Regards. The Blue Rider 09:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get an answer to my question above as to how this person is notable. There's been no response, and I still haven't seen anything that constitutes WP:SIGCOV of this person (rather than of her husband). Absent that, it shold probably go to AfD, don't you think? Cbl62 (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance, indeed it doesn't seem notable, but probably better to ping the creator of the page, @TonyTheTiger:. The Blue Rider 12:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA2 Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elle Leonard/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 23:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

[edit]
  • I forgot about it, I will do the review. The Blue Rider 09:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that there are concerns about the notability of this subject and I must agree. I will abstain from reviewing until it's certain that the article won't get deleted. The Blue Rider 09:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blue Rider I think that's unwise. There was one comment on the talk page about notability. If this was at WP:AfD, it would make sense to hold up the review, but it's not and it's already been dragging out since August. If you think WP:QF applies, you should quick-fail the review. Otherwise, it needs to be completed. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blue Rider This hasn't progressed any in the past couple of weeks. If you intend to finish the review, please do so quickly. If not, then please indicate that you are unable to continue so somebody else can take it over. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blue Rider despite actively editing and being asked for a status update, you have not done anything with this review. I'm declaring it abandoned. It saddens me to do that because this has been in the review queue for 272 days and this will be the second abandoned review in a row. I'll be blunt; you have done the nominator and the GA community a disservice here. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Background and early life

[edit]

High school

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA3 Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elle Leonard/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Preamble from Vami

[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Vami, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. As my comments are addressed or rebutted, I will cross them out, and only my comments.

If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV what's the status of this? RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear has it already been that long? I will review this in the next three days. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for quick-failure

[edit]

I have elected to quick-fail this nomination. In just my prose review - before even doing spot-checks or a copyright check, I found problems with just about every sentence in the article. I now have serious doubts about the notability of the article subject. There are many citations to RS, but as elaborated below much of the article veers away from Leonard and much of the content about Leonard is about for example posts on Twitter about playing recreational basketball with her husband. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • #Background and early life has very little to do with Leonard herself. Why do we need to know how big the building her grandmother supported was, or that she was a homecoming queen?
  • [...] she (listed at 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m)) Why does it matter how tall she was?
  • [...] brother, Max Bielfeldt (listed at 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m)) Why does it matter how tall her brother was?
  • [...] for being one of the area's interesting sibling basketball performers. This should use a quotation, rather than saying in Wikipedia's voice that central Illinois is a basketball desert.
  • On January 14, 2010, Leonard scored 25 points against LaSalle-Peru High School.[16] Is there any consequence to this?
  • She was a 2010 Peoria Journal Star Missing italicization.
  • Her younger brother, Max, was highly touted for basketball, but Elle claims that she could beat him at one-on-one until he could dunk. Who asked?
  • In the March 30, 2010, announcement that the Peoria Times-Observer would cease operations on April 28, 2010, both Elle and Max Bielfeldt were thanked for having lives that made for great content. This should be or use a quotation. It is not encyclopedic.
  • Her younger (high school class of 2014) sister, Matti (listed at 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)), excelled in volleyball (179 kills, 87 digs, 79 blocks and 30 aces as a senior) and eventually joined the University of Illinois team. This article is not about Matti.
  • Their first date was five hours long at the University of Illinois gym. The pair spent two hours of shooting basketball and then three hours of talking, since she refused a dinner date. Do we need to know this?
  • As Leonard's girlfriend during the 2012 NBA draft ceremony, she was regarded as having notable sex appeal compared to wives and girlfriends in attendance. Why is this, and the quotation from the article in the citation template, included? What value does it add?
  • After three years of operating solely as a food company, the brand marketed merchandise and then subsequently expanded to female sportswear. This sentence is missing a citation.
  • Leonard can be seen keeping her basketball skills sharp on social media.[37] What value does this statement add?
  • Most of #College is #Personal life content.

GA progress

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elle_Leonard&oldid=1243943470"