Talk:Kayla Clarke/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 18:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

General comment
  • I'm not overly aware of the ins and outs of Australian English, but from what I've seen, I would assume that the verb "to medal" would take a double l rather than single for "medalled"?
    • Corrected. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The article collates her achievements well, but at the moment the writing itself is a series of disconnected facts that seem more like a list of bullet points than a biography. I would suggest working on making the article flow better.
    • I've done a copy edit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would switch this around, and order it by importance rather than chronologically. So for example, start: "Kayla Clarke (born 6 August 1991) is an Australian swimmer who represented her county at the 2012 Summer Paralympics." I would also mention that she competes in more or less every swimming discipline, generally over 50, 100 or 200 metres, and then go on to mention her other achievements. But all this said, I know very little about swimming!
  • I'm fairly certain there won't be, or you would have already included it, but is there any chance of knowing more about her disability?
    • Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No need for three references to cite that she is a swimmer. Ref #1 adequately covers that whole first sentence: there is no need for all the others. Try not to place citations in the middle of a sentence without punctuation, it looks untidy.
  • There are a few more instances of over-referencing: I would suggest never placing more than two references in a single place, even where multiple sources do state the same thing.
    • The case though, is where multiple references are used to support a single sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In the Personal section you use an endash between years: "..named the 2009–10 Ipswich News.." but in this section, you use a slash: " the 2011/12 financial year." Be consistent.
  • The first paragraph seems to cover a large time frame, going from the start of her career in 2007, through to 2011/12, but then the second paragraph confuses the reader slightly by going back to 2009: would the article benefit from this paragraph being split across the rest of the section?
    • Don't think so; they cover two sets of games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • S14 doesn't need linking in the second paragraph, as it already is linked in the first paragraph.
  • Link each of the swimming strokes on their first use.
  • "..where she finished first in the S14 200m freestyle even." What does the "even" mean in this sentence?
    • Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal bests
  • An explanation, or at least a link, is needed for the difference between short course and long course.
  • The Time column doesn't sort correctly: I would expect 28.66, 29.04 ... 39.83, 01:02.5, ... 04:52.3 and the reverse, but that doesn't happen.
  • The reference column shouldn't be sortable: |class=unsortable will fix that.
  • Refs #1, #13, #14, #14 use "DD MONTH YYYY" for the accessdate, but everything else uses a YYYY-MM-DD format. Be consistent.

I'll place the article on hold for the time being to allow you to address these concerns. Harrias talk 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Laura is away, so I have been asked to pitch in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No worries: it doesn't concern me who deals with issues raised! Thanks for your fixes so far. For me, the prose is still some way off Good article standard. Although this is true across the whole article, I'll use the second paragraph of the Swimming section as a particular example. The sentences start: "At the.." "At the.." "She also competed at the.." "At the.." "She competed at the.." "At the.." "She competed at the.." "She also competed at the.." The repetition of this sentence structure, along with what remains a disjointed 'bullet point' style of writing means that in my view this article is currently well short of passing criteria 1: well-written. I'll leave the review on hold for improvement to be made, and then come back to it. Harrias talk 21:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I have had a go at re-working the prose. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Much better thanks. I've gone through the article with a bit of a copy-edit, and am now happy to pass it as a Good article. Harrias talk 07:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)