Talk:Keira Walsh

Club table

In the club table, why do half the entries refer to WSL 1 and half to WSL, yet both link to the same page? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The WSL was called WSL1 for a while... what is now the Championship was initially called WSL2. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Barcelona femení Supercopa medals still.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

GA?

Hi @Kingsif: have you considered putting this through WP:GAN? We don't have that many women's football GAs and I believe that this article represents some of Wikipedia's best work. I would submit it myself but I haven't made any significant edits to the article and can't see anything that needs doing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't properly considered a GAN, though it has been mentioned to me before. I personally would like to tighten up the various career season sections to improve internal consistency, and there are tweets (from official accounts, but still) sourcing a few statements so IDK if those need improving. But if you want to nom it yourself, feel welcome, and I'll try to make myself available for the review. Kingsif (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll put it through in that case. It'll take about 4 months for someone to get to it so, in the meantime, I'll see if some of the social media references can be replaced. GA is a lower bar than FA and most of the social media references are citing relatively uncontroversial statements and, in some cases, also have a reliable news source citing the same thing, so I don't see the sourcing as a major issue. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keira Walsh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CommunityNotesContributor (talk · contribs) 15:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've started this review now. Firstly, thanks for nominating this article. On the face of it and from what I've read, it's well-written and considerably detailed, so congrats on that. Please bare with me as it will take some to get through, I'll start on sources, then get to content with an overall summary I'll be developing below. I'll create sections for anything that I believe requires significant improvement. Pinging @User:Kingsif as has expressed interest in being available.

* Suggestion: Based on the slight issue of focus, re WP:OFFTOPIC as referenced below, I'm proposing to move the sentences focusing on City history, as opposed to Walsh, to City's history section, then leaving a summary here. It's obviously outside of GA remit to be improving other pages, and I wouldn't want valuable information to be removed from here (if refined) without it being placed where it belongs. I also don't believe I should be failing this GA based on focus that for me is a neutral, but otherwise confident that – If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. – definitely applies here. I otherwise wouldn't consider this a major "contribution" if it's removing text rather than adding it, so happy to help in the interest of improving the article's focus.

• Update 23/02: Have now reviewed approximately 50% of the content, and generally there is very little to address. I made minor edits, that were quicker to edit than document, and overall as I suspected, the article is very well written with limited issues. There are some WP:WTW that in hindsight I should/could have just removed myself, but in some cases there are different ways to modify the text, so is probably best left for a nominee or another user. I'm going to try and finish the content review as soon as possible, as I don't want to let it linger, but take the time you need to make improvements. As long as you're still on board, there is no rush. I'm now confident that with the sources issues resolved, there isn't a lot left to deal with @Spiderone. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• @CommunityNotesContributor: Thanks for the review. Regarding OFFTOPIC, I'm sure most of it is something that helps give context to Walsh's career, so somewhat necessary. As for WTW, chances are I added much of that trying to make interesting prose, I'll see what I can do. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• 27/02: This is basically complete to GA standard, regardless of certain changes/improvements that are still planned. There is just the career stats to look at and resolve. 28/02: Waiting for refs to notes section for statistics prior to passing article as GA.

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Unreliable, broken and sources with no cite data needs resolving. all resolved. Sources have been checked for verifiability, and original research removed. No copyright/plagiarism detected. Career stats now well referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Definitely broad in coverage, I highly doubt there is anything major (even minor) missing here. The focus could be refined with better summarised contextual information, such as Man City history, as referenced in Club career section, as per WP:OFFTOPIC.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It's includes the good, the bad, the ugly and the exceptional, with correct attribution where necessary.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Free from edit wars and vandalism, looks stable.

6. 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images have correct licenses and captions. Watermarks have been removed. External media comes from verified accounts that are the copyright holders of content.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Bias

To clarify my understanding of bias opinions regarding Walsh (that is/should be subject to scrutiny) based on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution.

• Manchester City F.C. - should be obvious
• City Supporters Club - also obvious
• City teammates - likewise
• English sports writers - when talking about Walsh playing for England, unless they are specifying that they don't support England, I believe it's fair to assume they do and their opinion should be considered biased.
• English sports writers - Walsh playing for City shouldn't inherently be considered a biased opinion.

I also think this is a very liberal approach, given that any opinion comes from a place of bias. Naturally any opinion with "extraordinary" claims should also be attributed, but otherwise "played well" isn't something I believe inherently requires attribution for example.

• Are there any extraordinary claims that are not supported? I could cover them in tonight's copy edit if I know about them. Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just checking over City career again for attribution given that I missed one, and now found another. Tomorrow I should be able to get to Barca and England career, so will let you know. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There are two in City career for you is the summary so far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Content

Have now completed assessment of content.

Lead

Haven't read full article yet but reads well.

Initial thought is that some of her early life could be summarised into it (for example into second paragraph), such as Young Sports Person of the Year and no.1 at badminghton under-13s seems MOS:LEADREL, as this could be considered as part of her career as a sportsperson, likewise with U-17 Team of the Tournament. Certainly nothing wrong with it, but could be expanded to up to four paragraphs based on WP:LEADSIZE.  Done

Early life

• "Though a dedicated Manchester City fan" - This should have the 'though' removed per MOS:EDITORIAL. The "though" this case was her support for Arsenal (not referenced), not her love of Spanish football.

 Done

• "though she described it as her "second sport" - "and described it as her second sport"

• Split sentence, including "though" removal. Kingsif (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Club career

Blackburn Rovers

• "Though she began playing as a right-footed left-back, and then a centre-half," - "She began playing as..."
• "With the Blackburn youth teams, and despite playing in defense and midfield" - "while playing in defense and midfield"
• "Walsh was a prolific goalscorer," - this sounds like a form of MOS:PUFFERY as the source(s) doesn't back up the claim. A word like "regular" would do here. 4 goals in 6 six games isn't exactly prolific goalsoring.
• "the addition of Walsh was said to be key to maintaining their place in it." - a fair statement, but requires WP:INTEXT as it comes from a primary source, or otherwise removing. For exmaple: "they said/claimed the addition of Walsh was said to be key to maintaining their place in it."
• "said to be the best player in the match despite the team losing," - mos:editorial, "that the team lost"

 Done all

Manchester City

A lot of information documents City's history, as opposed to specifically Walsh. While it does provide good context, it's significantly more detailed than for example City's 2016–2020 history, and would be useful included there, then summarised in this article. I'll get to these later, but as a summary, any paragraph that doesn't reference Walsh would better be suited on City's page, with/without a summarised version for context in this article.

• I did try to copyedit with this in mind, but besides removing some sentences and fragments that were about Walsh but rather trivial, there isn't any chaff. Every line, not even just paragraph, connects to the BLP subject. And I suppose there probably should be a finer level of detail here than the team overview article - you can get into detail when it's about certain accomplishments or misfortunes relating to one player when that detail's only really relevant to them. The information about titles, of course, should be in the Manchester City's various season articles, and a certain amount of prose updates to them wouldn't be amiss. Kingsif (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "despite Manchester City, the club she supports, preparing to enter the WSL and holding trials" - "despite" not due here per editorialising. The source states that Everton were already in the WSL, and that, in her own words, "No-one knew what to expect from City..."

Edited.  Done

• "asked to sign her to the main squad as their playmaking midfielder" - unless I missed it in the sources, Cushing does not reference "playmaking midfielder", only joining first team is all that should be referenced here.

• I've changed it to "holding midfielder". Though he describes a playmaker, Cushing only says a No 6, a sitting midfielder (a.k.a. holding, and this term is mentioned just below by article author). Kingsif (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)  Done

• "Manchester City added her to their 2015 League Cup squad in August, but the FA "might have" lost the registration documents for the change, causing City to be briefly suspended for fielding an unregistered player before the matter was resolved" - bit of odd structured sentence, it would read better something like: "Manchester City added her to their 2015 League Cup squad in August, causing City to be briefly suspended for fielding an unregistered player before the matter was resolved, as the FA "might have" lost the registration documents for the change."

Edited  Done

• "Manchester City under Taylor, from the start but particularly in the 2021–22 season, played Walsh differently" - which source does it emphasis Taylor playing Walsh differently in the 2021–22 season? Roebuck mentions her develop in that season, nothing to with Taylor, only her development overall, so this is assumed credit (ie Walsh could be responsible for her own development here, despite Taylor playing her differently from the start). For accuracy, something like; From the start, Manchester City under Taylor played Walsh differently,[132] with goalkeeper Ellie Roebuck believing her development into a box-to-box midfielder arrived in the 2021–22 season.[143] Not that, but something like it, ideally better, and attributing that bias opinion to Roebuck as per INTEXT: it should always be used for biased statements of opinion. The Offside Rule ref is otherwise misplaced there. This is why I prefer to remove a "but" and move on, rather than dig into these things.

• This - especially if wanting to mention Roebuck - is something to think more about. It is from an interview by and for City, so whether Roebuck can be credited (and not the club using a player as a mouthpiece for what they want to say without making it a press release) is a question. Offside Rule discussing how Walsh played differently at City and compared to England should be kept to the prose it is sourcing, but not if it means switching refs every few words (making it hard to read; except where there are direct quotes). As said, I will look at how to rephrase while remaining concise, if needed. Kingsif (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• So, the "Miss Dependable" Offside Rule ref I am seeing as I review the sources is quite important. The "62. Keira Walsh" one establishes that when Cushing left City (i.e. Taylor arrived), Walsh had less forward-thinking attributes. The "Miss Dependable" one says Under Gareth Taylor, Walsh’s passing numbers have dropped significantly with Manchester City often looking to play more directly through Alex Greenwood or Bronze. (and continues) - so this is where the article's "Manchester City under Taylor..." is from/can be sourced without the Man City "Roebuck" reference. The only thing that one is needed for is the quote of City/apparently Roebuck in the previous sentence ("taken her game to a new level") Like, it's definitely a Man City press release by another name. I'm going to make some tweaks to the "under Taylor" bit of prose first. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• @CommunityNotesContributor: This whole part now reads In May, Walsh was nominated for City's Player of the Season,[18] with the club feeling she had "taken her game to a new level" during it.[142] Manchester City under Taylor played Walsh differently from the start, with Walsh staying close to and mainly passing to the defense;[131][9] while continuing to have among the highest passing statistics in the WSL,[8] her passing metrics, as well as "almost all of her metrics around attacking play", "dropped significantly" in the 2021–22 season. - removed the unneeded Man City ref from the "played Walsh differently" sentence and reorganised this to have the 'difference' mentioned earlier and to have the source-text integrity on when she played differently and what season the stats refer to. Having reviewed the Man City ref, Roebuck doesn't the quote used in the article; since it's in the headline of Man City's editorial, it looks like the club summarising the interview and other discussion in there. This may make the case of attribution more confusing, as we could say that neither of them said that (it's kind of done a Wikipedia film article job of summarising a review, just of football). While the quote is a good connection, it's probably not needed, and removal would solve that. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, much better content now  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• "She was also important within the City side that won the 2014 League Cup" - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "She was also considered important by the club in the side that won the 2014 League Cup"
• "Walsh described as "unassuming" and "pivotal" in their success" - attribution to WSU, pivotal in their success in a strong claim.
• "Said by the Manchester Evening News to be growing in confidence in her role, Walsh was considered the key player for City ahead of their attempt to win the league for the first time since their successful 2016 campaign," - the rest needs attributing to avoid confusion here, "Walsh was considered by the newspaper/outlet the key player for City...", as the comma strongly implies the end of attribution, regardless of ref placement.
• "Absent again until January 2022, she returned with other players to help City to a comfortable win against Brighton in their first match of the new year." - "comfortable" is exactly what City would say. Maybe this word can just be removed to avoid attribution.

 Done above four

Barcelona

• Question - will we be ok without a direct citation for "Though women's football rarely drew transfer fees,"? It's common knowledge for anyone that watches women's football regularly but I'm not sure if the GA standards will require us to verify that most transfers in women's football are fee free? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  We could use this from BBC? Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That's perfect, thanks. I've added a link to that source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)  Done

• "Walsh then qualified for the final of the Champions League for the first time after Barcelona defeated Chelsea 2–1 on aggregate." - Walsh unable to qualify for CL as it's reserved for football clubs, but as per source, it was her first CL final.

 Done

• "Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was crucial in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League." - arguably attribution to Guardian journalist Suzanne Wrack required as "crucial" is a strong claim.

• I considered different options for this one. I have put "crucial" in quotation marks at the moment, as the smallest change, and here are my other thoughts of how it could be written (from smallest to biggest change, relevant change highlighted):

1. Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was "crucial" in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League. (current)
2. Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and was important in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
3. Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, and, per Suzanne Wrack, was crucial in Barcelona mounting a 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
4. Walsh started in the 2023 Champions League final, with Suzanne Wrack writing she was crucial to Barcelona mounting their 3–2 comeback to win the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League.
5. Barcelona won the 2022–23 UEFA Women's Champions League with a 3–2 comeback in the 2023 Champions League final; Walsh started in the final and Suzanne Wrack wrote that she was crucial to the victory.

Kingsif (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

By default I'd go for attribution (to notable writer of women's football) with least wordiness (as we don't need to know if she wrote or said it) so the middle option looks best to me, but without the "UEFA Women's" part. Never seen the need to reference the organisers of such tournaments, like for Euros, World Cup or CL, nor remind the reader that Walsh plays in women's tournaments. Also baring in mind consistency based on the "2023 Champions league final" referenced. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Gone with 3, with the concision amendments to tournament name. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

International career

• Based on discussion elsewhere, I have made amendments to the coverage (based on Guardian match report and later interview, sources already in article) of the 2019 World Cup:

• ...after the early weaker showing. Her performance in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost, however, was seen as strong –> after the early weaker showing, but she performed well in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost. (1) Besides moving the conjunction, the interview source mentions there being "irony" over the improved performance, which would justify it. (2) The new sentence order makes it easier to change the conjunction - e.g. after the early weaker showing. She then performed... (3) Based on the interview having praise (though framed as being more relaxed), and the match report using every superlative to talk about Walsh, I think "strong" in wikivoice would have been an acceptable summary, but the phrasing was just asking for a by whom tag; changing the phrasing and using "well" (fits the new phrasing better than "strongly") should make it watertight. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, emphasis now better placed. The wording was never "wrong" based on correct use of English, only that there was a reasonable chance of misinterpretation based on the previous sentence structure.  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• ...sent a narrowly-saved "thunderbolt" strike... –> ...sent a narrowly-saved powerful strike.... Though not a word-quote that would ruffle feathers, there was a simple enough alternative.

Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Much simpler  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: If not obvious, many if not most of these suggestions can be ignored if preferred and not related to V/NPOV.

Youth

• "Walsh was considered a key player in the 2013 season" - we could just say "named" here to avoid the "generically considered" rhetoric
• "Fidler names England U17 squad for Euro Finals" - no cite data
• "She scored their last spot kick in the 0(3)–0(4) third place play-off penalty shoot-out loss" - best to clarify the 0–0 draw and 3–4 penalties separately, I initially thought this was referencing aggregate, as not well versed in number of legs for 2013 U-17 Championship third-place play-offs.
• "Walsh was then selected to the under-19 England squad, for which she was sometimes a striker, while still playing at under-17 club level. Called to training with the second team in January 2014, she made a competitive appearance for the first team a week later." - ideally this would clarify "U19 second team", as two teams have been listed in this sentence, so could be easily misinterpreted to mean u-19 as first and u-17 as second.
• "When she was sixteen, coach Mo Marley told her that she needed to work harder; Walsh said missing out on selections at this age and Marley's warning, which she felt was tough love and indicative of Marley believing in her, " - the Walsh said should be moved to the start of the sentence for clarity, as is coming from Walsh, and to avoid the suggestion that she didn't say say "Mo Marley told her that she needed to work harder..."

 Done five above

• "Realising she did not want to lose out on football, Walsh began to apply herself." - the implication that she wasn't applying herself isn't supported by the RS: "I wouldn’t have applied myself in the right way". Something like, "Walsh began to further apply herself and improved".

 Done, without "improved" because (while strongly implied) I couldn't see that in the source Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "wore the armband again after returning from injury for 2016 U19 Euro preparation matches in September and November 2015" - cite "Manchester City Women charge resulted from FA 'losing paperwork'" misplaced?

Probably, removed it. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Senior

As the longest section in this article, ideally it would have sub-headers, to maintain similar format length to other sections. Also, would the structure not make more sense with England and Great Britain as header3s, with Youth and Senior as header4 under England?

• @CommunityNotesContributor: There are some tough questions here! There are some footballer bios with international careers broken down into sub-sections, but if looking at Lionel Messi, for example, each of those sub-sections is fairly long itself. There's also the question of what to title sub-sections that don't have a natural header (major tournaments). Football bios don't tend to have different structure of youth/senior, if just because most players only play for one country so there's no other headers. I think it's GB that's the question of what to do with it - usually if a player has represented multiple nations, it's at youth level, before they were cap-tied, (GB is an exception). Re-organising the headings levels might be unusual, but so is the case of GB, so I wouldn't object. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking Harry Kane for example, I think this is quite a convenient and simplist structure. Not necessary for GA, but a suggestion would be to split Senior career into two, where there is a distinct difference/change, notably going from struggling to success, with something like:

• 2009–2017: Youth level (U15 to U23)
• 2017–2022: Senior debut and first major tournaments
• 2022–present: Euro winner and World Cup runner-up

Alternatively, it might make sense to have more the context (that would also be a fair representation of content), for example:

• 2017–2022: First major tournaments and initial struggles
• 2022–present: Euros success and recognition as key player

I don't think that would be an issue with NPOV for sub-sections, as it would be an accurate reflection of RS. As well as the fact the two "points of view" are well attributed in the body, as well as contrasting. I'll leave it up to you to make any decision on sectioning, whether it be first suggestion, the second, a combination or the two, or neither. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Made this edit with a mix of both. Also provided the opportunity to move the paragraph (previously at the end) about her growing role since 2019 to the end of that sub-section, which might contextualise it better.  Done Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "During the campaign she was one of two senior Lionesses (with winner Beth Mead) to be nominated for the 2018 England Women's International Young Player of the Year award" - might make more sense to move this sentence to the end of the paragraph, as it's breaking the connection of "these qualifiers" with the sentence after "captained England for the first time during these qualifiers,", in case anyone thought "Young Player of the Year" requires qualification. It's also more of an additional piece of information which breaks the flow of the paragraph.

•  Done I have moved that sentence to the end, though I don't know if it improves flow. As you say it's an additional bit of information and coming at the end it seems somewhat clumsily tacked on. Not sure where else it would go, of course. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "After the match, Walsh and manager Phil Neville had a "really honest" discussion," - not quite accurate. Walsh was "really honest" and Neville was "honest", bit of a stretch to say it was mutually "really" honest. Can we just stick to "honest discussion"?

 Done

• "her name was announced by DJ Monki as part of England's social-media facing squad announcement" - not convinced this is relevant at all, the only relevance to Walsh is that her name was said with a remix, which also isn't very relevant.

•  Done and can I also say, thank you. That was a much larger part when I first started editing the article, and I only kept it because the social media campaign in question won an award; just to whine about something that can be annoying, but there are editors that see those announcements and rather than just use them to source a simple "X was selected to the squad" statement, they go to every player's article and add a whole paragraph with irrelevant detail. The same was also done with the overall England number (Walsh's being 200) - I trimmed that massively but you can see in the other 200+ articles that someone has added a whole paragraph to say that the FA uses legacy numbers (often treating it like the numbers were also randomly assigned for some reason?) - and the worst is the US women's team that won the World Cup in 2019. Each of those articles has a whole section to say that there was a public celebration for the team, and it's the same copy-paste on every article, no players mentioned at all (and ignoring that every team gets a public reception if they win). So yes, thank you for agreeing that some of these kinds of things are extraneous, despite so many users adding them. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I've trimmed many of those legacy number sentences. Didn't take me long to realise it was a copy & paste job, especially with the explanation of "how" the numbers were denoted, which was clearly irrelevant. This example 100% reminded me of that. The "benefit" is, for those who engage is this "mass info" dissemination, they never come back to check progress of articles, so I've had no issues removing large chunks of the info. I otherwise agree these generic sentences applied to all related articles are never helpful, period. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "her game and her development" - grammar? "her game and development"

• Well, that's a different grammatical question. If "game and development" is a single unit, that's fine, but separate possessives helps clarify if they are not (and it seems like they're not). Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point, let's ignore me on this one. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• " She considered quitting football because of it, working with sports psychologists to rebuild her enjoyment of the game" - is "sports psychologists" accurate? From a quick look, I only found psychologists referenced.

• You're right about it not being in the three refs at that sentence, but a quick search shows "sports psychologist" in The Times, interview with Sky Sports, and FourFourTwo (twice). In a ref we have elsewhere (a Man City interview), Walsh mentions "the psychologists" in relation to Man City, so one would assume they are inherently sports psychologists. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Done For want of not introducing too many refs, I've changed the article to just say "psychologists". This isn't inaccurate, so it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, it was good how it was then, even if the refs provided didn't specify this one. My only consideration was that she could have had sports psychologists, as well as personal psychologists, the latter being neutral and not affiliated for the club, which would also make a lot of sense in this case, and that's maybe why Walsh herself didn't reference that specific term. Probably taking Walsh's description makes most sense here, as RS are likely to attribute the latter term for contextual sake more than anything. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "She showed "classic understated dominance" - there's an argument for intext attribution here, especially since "understated" is a contradiction of the remaining RS in the sentence that highlights are key performance.

• Is it contradictory? Being important (key/dominance) and not making a big show of it (understated) seems to be what her whole style of play is about. But yes, I'll see how to work an attribution into it and come up with options again. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done "what Jonathan Liew described as"

To me, the "understated" is in relation to how others perceive her role, as an adjective, but I now see how this could be read as the subtle presentation of her role, using the verb. I guess it comes down to whether it was meant as "classic understated-dominance", or as "classic and understated dominance". Personally I read it as the latter, but all good now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "defeating Copa América champions Brazil on penalties to win 1(4)–1(2), with Walsh being named player of the match" going to suggest again "defeating Copa América champions Brazil 4–2 on penalties, after the 1–1 draw, with Walsh being named player of the match

• Could call it  Done - before I saw this, I edited it to be consistent with the notation format used in the youth section, so it's now 1–1 (4–2 (p)), with the "p" wikilinked to penalty shoot-out. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's simple and perfect. Sorry for being a pain with these minor things, I'm aware the original is the correct format for match results, I just think in other articles specifying these things makes sense. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "rather than try to replace her, England drastically and successfully changed formation for their next match" - technically they did replace her with another player; "rather than try to directly replace her", "rather than try to replace her role within the team"

 Done

• "She suffered ligament damage, though not an ACL injury as many feared," - not seeing fear in the sources, "as many speculated"? not convinced we can attribute shock of an audience to fear of a specific injury. also not doubting there was significant concern over this.

•  Done - changed to "speculated", would also suggest "were concerned" as an alternative if you're thinking that. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Either is fine here, had also thought concerned would be accurate. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "She was more confident and influential in the quarter- and semi-final wins over Colombia and Australia" - commanding would be more accurate here, rather than confident that isn't referenced; "She was more commanding and influential"

 Done

• "In the final they lost 0–1 to Spain – Walsh suffered against Spain's creative midfield, her performance described in The Telegraph as "very poor ... by her standards" – to earn the silver medal" - I'm just hoping with this sentence that no-one could reasonably misinterpret that her poor performance earned her a silver medal. A suggested better structure though; "In the final they lost 0–1 to Spain, with Walsh earning a silver medal. She suffered against the oppositions creative midfield, her performance described in The Telegraph as "very poor ... by her standards"."

•  Done You'll be glad you weren't on social media, then, because some likely upset England fans did call the Barcelona players traitors. As for the text, I've done an edit similar to your suggestion, just made it two sentences. Although, this does make reading the end of this paragraph into the next one rather jarring, going from a kind of 'action' (performance description) to talking about another competition. I'll try to think of a way to fix that, perhaps by moving the injury mention earlier in the next paragraph to lead out. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To be particularly annoying here, "to earn the silver medal." is in reference to Lionesses not Walsh, so needs to be plural "to earn silver medals" or otherwise something like "become runners-up". Much clearer to me now though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done "to win silver", short and sweet. Kingsif (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Walsh was not included in the team for the first two matches due to an ongoing injury, though one Wiegman said was unrelated to the World Cup injury." - "one Wiegman" part reads awkwardly, "though Wiegman said it was unrelated to the World Cup injury" would read better I think

• I can't lie, your suggestion is what reads awkwardly to me, because it has a different sentence subject. "...an ongoing injury; Wiegman said this was unrelated... injury, however." might read better, but (as I mention directly above), I am thinking about restructuring the opening of this paragraph so I won't edit it for now, but keep this in mind. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Consider it  Done through paragraph restructure. I think the edits also re-centre the 'intro' about the Nations League to be about the article subject, so should be an improvement all around. Kingsif (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah yes, mine wasn't much better. The whole paragraph reads much better now though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "England had lost midfield control without Walsh; she brought this and launched England's attacks when playing the remainder of their group matches" - "she brought this" doesn't make sense, is there a word missing?

• The subject is "midfield control", "this" refers back to it. Subject pronoun replacement is not just common but grammatically encouraged; it'd read awkward repeating it in such close proximity. Could use "such control" if you think necessary. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done within the edits to the paragraph mentioned above.

I was reading the subject as "lost midfield control" rather than "midfield control", that's where I had gone wrong I think. Emphasising the control rather than loss definitely helps here thanks. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "England failed to advance to the Nations League finals by one goal of goal difference." - wordiness: "England failed to advance to the Nations League finals by one goal of difference."

• Goal difference is not goals scored, your suggestion is factually inaccurate. (At least, if I'm reading what you intended, since "goal of difference" isn't correct/how one would say it, either.) I.e. there was 'one goal difference' - England scored one more goal than the Netherlands - but the Netherlands went through instead because of one goal of goal difference, the tiebreaker calculation. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, had completely overlooked that. That's another ignore. Sometimes I forget word repetition is necessary. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "an automatic starter for England, a name on the teamsheet that is never questioned" - bold claim, especially reads as puff that's completely untrue as I've just questioned. Attribution please.

• Bold, but having only missed games through illness or injury in the relevant period, not untrue at all ("questioning", as I read it, is referring to managers questioning adding the name to the teamsheet, not normal people questioning if a journalist talking about the permanence is being bold). I'll see about how to get "per The Offside Rule" into a clause non-awkwardly. Perhaps breaking the quote into two chunks (Since 2019, Walsh has been "an automatic starter for England," said by The Offside Rule to be "a name on the teamsheet that is never questioned", or similar.) Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's perfect. The fact and opinion separated with attribution, much much better. I'm pretty sure they meant generically questioned, given that (as we know) it's not just managers that question team-sheet decisions. We've also got to consider context for NPOV here, given "England fans were heavily critical of her continued selection after the early weaker showing". The claim is purposefully open to interpretation, and more relevantly it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If anything, the first half of the sentence doesn't need quotations if re-worded, as is a factual non-contentious statement to me. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done with the phrasing mentioned

• "with media feeling the over-reliance gave opponents a target to subdue" - "media believing" rather than feeling

 Done

Style of play, popular culture, personal life

Had a good look through claims & sources here, really nothing much I can seriously critique.

• "since 2022, she has used tackling more frequently" - not finding the specific claim "since 2022" in the sources (namely pressing matters), forgive me if I missed it, I am skimming through searching keywords. It seems like it needs another source (prior to 2022) that describes her as non-frequent tackler, that I think exists, in order to combine the two claims of "since 2022" and "tacking frequently".

• Presumably the source attached to "more likely to intercept than tackle" is pre-2022 (it is), I recently added the since 2022 part and picked the year she moved to Barcelona as that is what the Pressing Matters source is discussing. (And since the other one is 2023 World Cup, the focus of the coverage of the tackling is in line with the time frame and shouldn't need another source.) This part might warrant rephrasing (rather than my kinda clumsy addition), if the more-tackling is sustained enough now (2 years, so presumably). Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am going to change how this is phrased (right now, if the internet sticks), seeing as interceptions are also mentioned later. Kingsif (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done

• "Having been described as an artist in the game" - which game? best not to assume readers wouldn't go directly to this section.

• I doubt people, even those skipping sections, are going to be reading the article without knowing it's football, but I haven't changed this because of phrasing. So, yes, "the game" is one way to refer to football, but that's not what's being done here. "Artist in the game" is kind of a standard phrase (with 'game' meaning the relevant industry, sports or otherwise - you hear it about rappers - like "changing the game"/"top of their game"), and so changing it to "artist in the game of football" would be a bit of a butchering of English, removing the associated meaning of the phrase, and (the real reason) unnecessary. I.e. it doesn't matter what the 'game' is, it's generic to be said to be "an artist in the game" of your industry. Not to mention, the rest of the sentence refers to "ball skills", which should make it clear for those who missed the football memo. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Based on below, as well, I'll probably be re-writing this paragraph in a little bit, and checking what phrasing the sources use to see if there's something consistent we can quote. Kingsif (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Based on your explanation, this seems fine. I hadn't considered the phrasing element, so I wouldn't worry about it. The reader will either "get it" or not, and if they don't (it went over my head a bit), then there is nothing to misinterpret incorrectly most importantly. I don't think there's a way to contextualise this differently without it losing it's meaning, but you're welcome to try! Only thought is for it not be the opening line, and tagged onto something else in that first paragraph that's describing her notability "within the game". CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  On reflection, opening with the context of viral clips might make more sense here, regarding "popular culture", which can definitely be attributed to viral clips. Ie "modern world syndrome", something that is unlikely to go out of fashion any time soon. Whereas being "an artist in the game", while useful context for the section, isn't necessarily contributing directly to culture. I understand the concept of opening with a brief description of her role in popular culture, but simply being an "artist in the game" isn't inherently contributing to that, unless elaborated upon. Again, I leave it to your fingers to decide. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done See edits (and replies below). Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "video clips of some of Walsh's ball skills have gone viral. A long-range pass she made in the 2019 SheBelieves Cup, taking eight Japan players out of the game to provide the assist, was popular"." - have moved refs to correct positions, but still major issues with this. 1) The highlights video only received 30K, from a quick search of the event there is no viral video, so blackburn rovers' "viral claim" is clearly exaggerated as per not an WP:IS. 2) Maybe we can focus on it being considered "pass of the tournament", with attribution to BBC, rather than this viral claim? --- "Footage of Walsh in a 2022 England training session, in which she scored a solo goal after creatively evading the members of the opposition five-a-side team, was also shared widely" - this we can definitely say went viral, as per GiveMeSport RS, as well as YT video viewership.

• To be fair, I have seen a clip of that SheBelieves cup assist going around Twitter occasionally, though usually official accounts with their "remember this cool [x]" tweets when engagement is low, rather than common users. But it might have been a clip like that, in 2019, that was viral. You make a good point about pass of the tournament, though, I wonder if that might be better moved to the international career and leaving "viral" to the 2022 goal. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is a link for this video going viral, then that'd be fine I think, I checked YT but found nothing. All it needs is the specific clip of that pass that gained traction to back up rovers ref, not much else imo, as my breaking up of the links (trying to attribute refs to claims), has effectively made things worse I realise. The "was popular" refs clearly don't support the claim for example, it's just a reference to the highlights rather than the pass itself. Otherwise I agree, pass of the tournament could certainly go to career, was thinking that as well, here's an RS I found for you [1] (while searching for a viral video). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Found a ref for "viral" pass from RS, will add CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a thought, "was popular" could be changed to something like "quickly shared online" for context sake. I otherwise removed the rovers ref, as seems unnecessary when supported by secondary source, and left "England profile" ref as this is needed for "assist". The multiref of the viral video could be split up if you include content to career, taking the BBC ref with you for the "pass of the tournament" quote and leaving the youtube video for context. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done the "quickly shared online". I'll look at the sources now; I think there should be some mention in career given there is mention of a similar pass at the Euro, but then shouldn't be excessive coverage there. Kingsif (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Done some more of this, including moving around some of the other "In popular culture" paragraphs to try and give it a better sense of prominence and connection. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "She is nicknamed "WonderWalsh"," - this is a clear "has been" rather than "is". have checked and there are no RS referencing this recently.

 Done

Career statistics

• Tell me if I'm missing somewhere here on totals. Cup (31) + League Cup (39) = 70. Let's take 1 off Blackburn Rovers (not referenced by Soccerway) to make it 69 for accuracy. Soccerway's domestic cup totals = 46. Where is the difference of 23 (69-46) coming from, and is there a source we should be adding to include it if this difference exists?

• Soccerway looks to not include domestic cup appearances before the WSL season format change in its overall count (kinda makes sense, for year overlap), does that account for the difference? We could add back the Man City statistics ref, that'll be correct for those. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Added back the Man City ref. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There's still a major issue here, the archive doesn't work for bringing up Walsh's stats (as it's a form of interactive page), so best removed. Check yourself ideally, as well as other archived versions if possible, but I had no luck with getting any data out of it. I otherwise had a dig into this issue yesterday, and it's a bit more problematic than I initially thought:

• The original page hasn't been migrated from fawsl.com to womenscompetitions.thefa.com (see redirect), instead it seems to have been replaced with https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/PlayerStats, but this excludes the FA Cup, the data we need. I even tried manipulating the url in order to land myself onto a redirected page, but had no luck.
• fulltime.thefa.com stats doesn't include appearances for individual competitions, only overall stats.
• The strange/annoying thing is most stats websites have all the league & league cup appearences back to 2014, but for whatever reason, haven't included FA Cup (possibly due to aforementioned inaccessibility of data).
• My only consideration thus far is to use fulltime.thefa totals, subtracted by the league/league cup appearances to check over the stats, as there doesn't appear to be any record of these stats on their own.
• In the meantime, the womenscompeitiotns.thefa link should probably go in, as well as fulltime.fa.

Basically, the FA Cup appearences on this page look like the only existing public archive of information, which is an issue, so any suggestions/ideas appreciated here. My only idea so far is a note to be included to explain how to verify the data. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

At this point, and since there aren't that many FA Cup appearances to account for, we could just look through match reports of Man City's FA Cup games and manually count. Hopefully, they are archived appropriately. Kingsif (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Just looking through 2021–22 Women's FA Cup, City only played 5 games, so how Walsh could've played 10 is... a question. Based on match reports, she played 4 of them. Even if the two 2020–21 W FA Cup matches postponed and played during the 2021–22 season have been counted for the following season (IMHO, they should be kept the season they apply, no matter when played, with notes where needed), that would still only make six.

FA Cup stats:

• 2014: Blackburn Rovers: 1 appearance (per source in table/article) Man City: 0 - they were knocked out before she joined, and she would be cup-tied anyway

Man City:

• 2015: at least 1 appearance (the 2014-15 W FA Cup, but all matches correspond to the 2015 season)
• 2016: 0 appearances (injury - the 2015-16 W FA Cup, but all matches correspond to the 2016 season)
• 2017: 4 appearances (the 2016-17 W FA Cup, but all matches correspond to the 2017 "Spring Series")
• 2017–18: at least 3 appearances
• 2018–19: 5 appearances + 1 goal
• 2019–20: 5 appearances, including 3 played during the 2020–21 season
• 2020–21: 4 appearances, including 2 played during the 2021–22 season
• 2021–22: 4 appearances
• Total: Blackburn Rovers: 1 appearance, Man City: 26 (at least, possibly 27/28) appearances + 1 goal, by my count based on what team sheets are available. Kingsif (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

References

@CommunityNotesContributor: Based on this, the table is uncomfortably wrong for FA Cup, at least the earlier years and 21-22. Kingsif (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, also agree matches played are based on season, not when they are played (this is probably where 10 came from). Can we add a summarised version of these notes to article and be done? For example under note b for FA Cup; 2014,[ref][ref][ref][ref], 2015[ref][ref], etc, or otherwise the notes/refs within a single ref note for verifiability. The videos need an explanation as you provided to me, to clarify why they count. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Added a mighty ref bundle to note b. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Nor does it help that the stats on Man City season articles here on Wikipedia are hit and miss in terms of accuracy. Kingsif (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• May also be some inaccuracies in other early matches. It had 3 appearances in the League Cup in 2015, while City archives show 4 appearances (Sunderland as a sub, Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal). Going to check the rest. Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Now checked the matches for all the single year seasons (2014, 15, 16, 17), and they're all correct at this article. Kingsif (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Checked all the Man City matches. Should be fully correct at this article. Knowing the effort of filling in all the Barcelona season articles with player stats, I can't say I will personally be up for going around fixing all the City ones, too. Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm under the impression the the 4 appearances in the Women's International Champions Cup should be included under "Other" section for completeness, as it is a competitive competition, . Should I not be?

• Great question. It probably should, but the coverage of it outside of the USA is negligible (not that there's that much in the USA, either), which is probably why it's not included (for seemingly any of the players in any of the teams) - nor mentioned in career, for that matter. Lack of sources means it probably isn't DUE in career section, but as a fully competitive event there's no reason not to add it to the stats. Although maybe because it's an invitational from a private company (not recognised by a federation), would be a reason. Hmm, if Man City said when she left that she had 211 appearances and the stats add up without including it, that means they don't seem to count them. I might have to think about it for longer. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Was going to say ignore this given the above, but you've it added I see, so all good  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Have removed, based on City's reports. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Non-content discussion, collapsing for ease of navigation

@CommunityNotesContributor: Can I ask for clarification on your understanding of EDITORIAL, based on your removal of "however" in the part about the 2019 World Cup. I'm not saying "however" is the best word, but it is discouraged (i.e. it is a word to watch, not to avoid) only when it is being used to cast doubt on what is said before and encourage readers to believe what comes after. I have been questioning your …awareness… of that with other similar word removals, but since none of them have really affected understanding of the prose, I've not bothered. This one, though, I do think there is good reason to include. When discussing that she played weakly and then saying she played well (at least, as the media says), there should be a connection word acknowledging the disparity, so that readers aren't confused. This may also be somewhat relevant earlier (thinking about City support but Spanish inspiration, though I personally think rewriting that part would be better). Anyway, I would also like to point out that by adding in-line attribution only for the part about playing well (and not about playing poorly), you have actually done some editorialising - when there are two contrasting things, a reader will accept wikivoice but may take what is attributed with a grain of salt, so the edit you made could be inappropriately casting doubt. Perhaps we can look at what the original prose was and discuss the best ways to improve it. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Edit diff for ease; now I look again, @CommunityNotesContributor:, your addition of INLINE seems further unusual given the whole review of how she played (poorly then well) is cited to the same source. For this reason, I have undone your edit. Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) It's not about casting doubt, it's about an implying relationship when none exists. For reference sake, with these WTW but, despite, however, and although, most have been left as the source does imply the relationship, I've only been removing the ones were a relationship isn't implied by the source. As for this example: Her performance in the semi-final against the United States, which England lost, however, was seen as strong - the implication based on sentence structure could be the relationship between England losing and Walsh playing well, which isn't referenced by the source, rather than Walsh playing better. The "which England lost" would need to be in brackets or otherwise – which England lost – to not imply that relationship. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) It is about if there is casting doubt, really - the reasoning behind the MOS, which I do think it says, and why phrasings should be considered rather than treated all the same. The idea is that these words can imply things, but don't necessarily, and if they do, what they imply may not be introducing editorial POV, but it could be. So, watch out. And these words are far from the only things that can be negative. While there is a line where interesting prose crosses into journalistic writing, this article is far behind it already, so I hope you don’t want to make it into a bunch of simple statements by going excessive on avoidance of doubt; WTW also does not say that words/phrases must be removed or inline attributed, unless there is something controversial (not just it can stay if it’s in the source). We take care with BLPs, but knowing where the prose is in danger territory is more feeling it out than wholesale removal. Trying to be collaborative, but your hard line seems much more hard line than the MOS here, and we don't want the article to suffer. As I said, in this case I thought the word was helpful to confirm to the reader that the info itself isn't being contradictory; there will be other ways to write this - and I had not considered that it may suggest England's loss was because of playing well (probably not an intuitive reading, but we can't assume anything of readers' abilities). As with what you've also just brought up about the 2021-22 season and Taylor/Roebuck, I will try to do a further copy edit with the sources. If Spiderone is familiar with sources, feel free to beat me to it. And per what you've said below, I will probably look at how to best contain the information while still being concise. Probably when I get in tonight and can have it all open at once. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) As I said, I left the overwhelming majority of these "words to watch", because they are either fine and don't imply anything, or otherwise implied by the source, so please don't assume I'm engaging in wholesale removal, this is far from the truth of the matter. I'm well aware that WTW has nothing to do with inline attribution, it's more the case that when these words have been used in an editorial fashion, there's often something "below the surface" which needs addressing as well, such as a biased statement of opinion that requires attribution, like the case of Roebuck's opinion (that I had previously overlooked). So while unrelated, it often surfaces them, because where the facts have been stretched, they have often been twisted as well. I'm also not disagreeing with you on your philosphy here, I could do with being more careful such as the example over "England lost, however". I should have simply put the "However" at the start of the sentence, even if not the best opening word, for yourself or otherwise to improve on. At the same time, there have been numerous examples of WTW that did emphasise relationships which didn't exist - even if most of the time they didn't or legitimately did. Personally, I find this aspect of Wikipedia article writing style one of the most annoying and wish it didn't exist. I don't think this is a hard line either, upholding the policy that exists, which is simply based on checking the legitimacy of these words being used as I have done so. Regardless, moving forward, I'll bring things up in the review but will avoid any further editing so that any issues can be discussed - unless it's a cite error/placement type thing. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Yes, I hope it's clear that my hope was for discussion, because if a WTW is a problem, it’s rarely as simple as removal. You seem to agree with that, but I am not sure you quite got what I meant about hard line. It's probably not the place to address, though I think you've stepped back from adding prose recently so I can’t judge on that, and I'll just say that MOS is not itself policy, it is advice on writing style informed by policy, and that is the crux of it. Following every example in MOS to the letter is not necessarily applying what policy intends. I can only say, it is probably a learning curve from reading every pillar and policy and guideline and absorbing them, to then applying them in practice. This is not criticising your review, by the way, because it is leading us to useful discussion on improvement and uncovering the delightful Man City pseudo-propaganda style that may need better attribution. Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Yes I'm backing off adding any prose, that shouldn't be my place, especially when there are a multitude of different ways for sentences to be written, and I'm fully aware you're writing ability exceeds mine. For reference, this was partially my inspiration to engage in this review, to try and improve my own writing on here. Also good point re: not a policy, rather a guideline, not something I'd really distinguished between, so I'll try take that into account from now on. If you are criticising parts of my review (which I think you are), then I welcome it like any constructive criticism, so no issues there. I'm not exactly an expert at these reviews given it's my first, even if I think I have a good enough understanding of how to achieve one. I'm also more concerned about approving a GA that's not good enough, rather than being overzealous in reviewing a nomination, so there is that. I'm otherwise happy to hear from a second opinion on this, as there's nothing more that I'd like than to hear than to "not really worry about it much" rather than "these words shouldn't be there when they imply a relationship that doesn't exist". As I imagine there will be more of these WTW that I'll raise when reviewing the second half of the content, if indeed I believe it's implying a relationship that doesn't exist, and as I said I'd prefer not to have to raise these issues at all. And no offence intended, but in fairness, your opinion on this is far from neutral in this content, similar to mine. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Perhaps more criticising your reviewing style, based on my experience and views, but I am not the guy to even think "this isn’t how I’d do a review so therefore it’s bad", and I don’t want you to think that I think that. But I do think you’d enjoy reading WP:NOOBJECTIVITY ;) Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) I don't think that don't worry. While I do realise is that WTW is not a policy, only a guideline, it is none the less a requirement to comply with for WP:GACR, similar to other guidelines, so is far from advise in this case. In fairness, the whole point of GA is an article that not only complies with policy (as every article already should) but additionally certain guidelines, even if they are open to interpretation etc. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Of course, yeah, when you're reviewing an article look at everything that can improve it in line with WP's ideals. It's probably that between my experience of reviews being more a focus on V and the information content for a reader, and my thinking that your interpretation (as you say) of the guideline here is stricter/more wide-ranging than I and maybe other editors take it, this review is just quite different. Which isn't a bad thing, as more variety in reviewing styles should make it harder for things to slip through familiar cracks. And since V is being checked in the process, as you've pointed out, it's not like it's taking extra time. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) To clarify my opinion, for me most important is both V and NPOV, especially for a BLP. However I'm also acutely aware that many people don't have a great grasp of the English language, and while the article should (ideally) be well written, in the best language possible, it can leave some aspects of the content open for misinterpretation (such as the original example here). Hence my point there was nothing "wrong" with that example, only that I could see how it could be misunderstood, and therefore more relevantly, be better structured. This is more the age-old debate of use of language, whereby most formal English isn't in fact "Higher English", but instead a mixture of Common English and the former, like for example the RS we use throughout this article. The issue becomes that most readers simply don't understand HE very well, meaning they can misinterpret quite easily, similar to bad use of CE, like when there is a comma in the wrong place. This might help to explain my concern over certain conjunctive usage, as while one might be of the opinion that, given it's correct use of English, there should be nothing misinterpreted, unfortunately I don't believe that to be the case for the majority of readers. As an example, as it was referenced before as an example, the previous sentence (to paraphrase) "Though a Manchester City fan, she watched Spanish football growing up". Realistically, there should be no misinterpretation here, but if you were coming from a place of having very limited understanding of football and City, this could easily provoke subtle implications in the readers understanding that don't exist, such as; "Do most City fans not watch Spanish football?", "Does she watch Spanish football instead of City", "Are City fans not supposed to watch Spanish football?", "Is being a City fan mutually exclusive of watching Spanish football?", all of which would obviously be incorrect and a misinterpretation. While Wikipedia shouldn't be too concerned with the readers' ability to "understand" the content, the issue being that there isn't a lot of difference, from the readers perspective, of misinterpreting something (which could be avoided with slightly different use of language), and reading OR or a POV. In each case, the reader is left with an impression that is inaccurate, even if the latter isn't necessarily the responsibility of Wikipedia, the result is identical. I think this might help better explain my reasoning at least, that isn't necessarily driven by guidelines but instead my own opinion and experience, that a higher-level of English should come under as much scrutiny (if not more) than lower-level, given it's often more likely to be misunderstood by the "average" reader. At least from my experience doing translation work, the "understand-ability" of text is often more significant than the "quality" of it, when the audience isn't well-educated that is, because ultimately it's not only about correct use of language, but the ability for the reader to understand. I would also argue that this wouldn't be an issue for say medical-based articles, because the target audience is likely to be significantly different and better educated, but given this is football, it's fair to assume the reader's ability is going to be relatively average. Obviously I'm under the strong opinion that the "correct" use of language isn't necessarily the "best" use of language, which is a strong bias I'm aware. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC) You're otherwise absolutely correct, I shouldn't have attributed one opinion with intext and not the other. I wasn't considering the next line to be an opinion, but instead a factual report of the match, however in hindsight narrowly-saved "thunderbolt" strike is certainly a bias opinion that also requires intext attribution, or removing. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Honestly, I would have said all of it is a factual report and that, as journalists do, they use some nice figuratively language - and we can add this as sound bites to reflect how emphatically or not the media responded. Just using quotation marks, so the opinion is clearly not wikivoice, should be absolutely fine. Especially with just the one ref so it is easy to see who said it. Kingsif (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

References

{{reflist|group=a}} is not a note list and should be placed in References section where it belongs, as they are links to references not notes. Ideally these would be in a H:CITEMERGE based WP:CITEBUNDLE, but at minimum citations need to be placed in the references section, if there is no note to reference. As pedanntic as it may sound, this is a basic requirement for GA status based on MOS:REFERENCES, even if the style you chose is entirely up to you. Personally, I find multiref2 is a relatively easy and straightforward way to do this, and more relevantly is convenient for the reader to access.

Ignore this, in hindsight pretty much any notes/reference format is OK it seems, as long as it's established and consistent.

• @CommunityNotesContributor: The best format for the information/reader could be discussed if you have ideas. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Best format is the one that exists  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Done for now

Have completed assessment of sources listing those that are unreliable, broken or otherwise could do with improvement. Unreliable "BRGS is supporting former @HaslingdenHigh & BRGS 6th form student @keira_walsh & the rest of the Lionesses. Brilliant performance last night!" - per WP:TWITTER unless the account can be verified via the official website, it should be removed  Done "Congratulations to former 🌹 [Lancashire] captain @keira_walsh who leads @ManCityWomen today in the continued absence of @stephhoughton2 We know she will do a great job for her beloved club" - unverified twitter  Done Question for @CommunityNotesContributor: about this and a few others, on a practical level rather than pulling up the sources specifically: how can a Twitter/X account being verified or not be relevant to its SELFPUB status? We know which accounts are official and since verification is now just paid users, surely it's unrelated now the platform has changed. Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Good question and point, I should have elaborated on this. As per the ABOUTSELF: there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Unfortunately, there is a doubt, because as you point out verified accounts are now just paid accounts. The way around this would be to provide a note within the ref to verification, for example an official website / profile page that links to the account, to avoid doubt over it's authenticity. Otherwise, a pre-November 2022 archive would do I think. I've otherwise overlooked verified organisations, as despite it also being a paid tier, I'd agree it comes across as the "We know it official" type status. As per the general page, the issue is with verifiability, namely the accessibility of it for the reader. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Captain Amanda Sampedro of Atletico de Madrid exchanges pennants with captain Keira Walsh of Manchester City during the UEFA Women Champions League Round of 32, first leg between Atletico de Madrid and Manchester City at Wanda Sports City on September 13, 2018 in Majadahonda, Spain" - unnecessary image cite and doesn't support the claim, the previous cite is perfectly fine  Done "Walsh injury overshadows Man City Women win" - Fan site not reliable per WP:SPORTBASIC, this also comes under the category of WP:BLOGS with the author not appearing notable. Are these sources necessary to support the claims? @CommunityNotesContributor: While not everything from SBNation is reliable, would this (at least, what of it is from the official supporters' club) not be fine if attributed in-line? For this part, the BBC ref next to it sources the match detail, the "Bitter and Blue" ref sources the info about said official supporters club. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Yes, let's go with that, if that's the case. I admittedly wasn't checking the info when checking sources, so given the context, very logical. My next question is, where is there the information that it is the official supporters club? Pretend like I'm not a City fan and I don't know this is the official supporters club, because I honestly don't know... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the SBNation site is not the official supporters club, but the information that is being sourced is the POTM and the SBNation site says: MCWFC OSC POTM: Keira Walsh. Myself and Natasha Jackson of the MCWFC OSC helped pick the four players up for the poll at the game but decided to unanimously award it to Keira after she suffered that nasty injury at the end of the match. [MCWFC OSC = Man City WFC Official Supporters Club] I.e. unless it's outright lying, that's someone with firsthand knowledge; and the information being sourced isn't an opinion. In looking for how other sources treat this SBNation site (Bitter and Blue) in terms of reliability to get a better idea, I have found that Man City itself references them, for both women and men. (As has Barcelona, too.) As mentioned before below, this is probably not the place for such discussions and unless Spiderone wants to drag the review process out, sources should be used or not based on what's already established. Kingsif (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Per Spiderone's opinion below, unless we can verify it's the official supporters club, it's best removed. It's annoying I admit as the information is very relevant, but without confirmation that it can be considered a reliable source (beyond City linking to them), it's best avoided. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)  Done Kingsif (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC) "Man City Women overwhelm Blades" - same as above ""Man City Women end 2018 with win" - same as Taking the two above together, I think the reason those refs are used instead of a simple squad list is because the sources themselves connect the information. If you think simple squad lists for the 3 or 4 matches would be sufficient to cite She ended 2018 serving as captain., we can do that. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Simple squad lists showing Walsh as captain from primary sources would be fine. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) I've only managed to find one squad list that mentions captain, and only having one wouldn't really support the text. Kingsif (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Given that you removed the refs I'd say this is  Done. Even though @Spiderone might have some insight into the reliability of this so-called official supporters website (see above) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) We're probably safer removing them. I can't find anything else about the author, Caroline Sherratt, other than a post at Sporting Her, which probably isn't enough to establish her as a reliable source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Women's Champions League - Quarter Final - Second Leg - Manchester City v FC Barcelona - Manchester City's Keira Walsh with Barcelona's Alexia Putellas after the match" - image shows Walsh wearing the captains armband, not being handed the armband. Don't mean to be trivial here, but citation doesn't support the claim made. Please re-word, or find a reliable source for the claim, which should realistically be possible. @CommunityNotesContributor: I think some of these image sources originally had little editorials that aren't there anymore, that just came back to me. Anyway, "should realistically be possible" is proving hard, the Guardian's live coverage, for example, doesn't even say White started as captain: the UEFA and Barça reports have White starting as captain but that's it. One of those + image (orphaned of its text) might suffice at a push. The text about her performance in the match, well-sourced, is more important though. If I remember, I added the captain part as a segue from the previous sentence. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Even with a combined ref to White starting as captain, the image would still come under WP:USERG. As you said, her performance was more relevant, even if being handed the armband would be relevant. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This one was already  Done in refocusing on performance. Kingsif (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) "Keira Walsh on Instagram: "Thank you City 💙" - cite does not support the claim, the title is all that was posted. @CommunityNotesContributor: Maybe you can't see it if you're not logged in, but there's a whole letter in that post (slide 8). Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Forget instagram had slides. Have amended ref so it points to slide.  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Two more Manchester City players are on Real Madrid Femenino's radar" - Fan site, ideally the original source by Flo Lloyd-Hughes would be cited, otherwise would be better off removed as comes across as WP:SPECULATION. Lloyd-Hughes' original tweet - I actually think I went with the Real Madrid news site because a lot of tweets were getting into the sources, because the tweet is better (i.e. from neutral source) to cite the text in the article than the site is. I realise you could question the tweet as you have with Garry below, but (per my above comment) I think notable journalist selfpub. I've added the tweet, Real Madrid site can be removed or whatever. Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) I've referenced Instagram to confirm verification of the account in the ref, I think this is fine now. Possibly the dumbest edit I've ever made, but I think it needs the accessibility of verification available.  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Tom Garry on Twitter" - unverified twitter account, even though I realise it's almost certainly genuine. is a better source available for this claim? Oh yeah, there's going to be sources for that, the tweet was the first 'confirmed' numbers, but it's everywhere. Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Looks like it was already in the next ref, though some of that is login-walled, so perhaps TNT Sports could be added? Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Have added telegraph archive, but couldn't find "bonuses" included in the sources, nor TNT, and struggling to be able to "verify" Tom Gary's Twitter account where the source of these bonuses came from. It's also odd that he mentioned this on Twitter three days after his telegraph article, but failed to reference this in the RS. Ideally, references to these bonuses would be removed, unless they can be reliably sourced. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC) I've removed "bonuses" until there's a better ref that uses the word. That might have been the reason for the tweets: the number is still in RS (with both figures stated or simple conversion) but not explained as including bonuses. Kingsif (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) * "'What a f***ing turnaround': Aussies lose it over double-edged joy in Matildas 'chaos'" - per WP:FOXNEWS, this would be better removed. Moreover, I'm sure there are more reliable sources to support the general summary of the statement. @CommunityNotesContributor: Fox Sports Australia isn't Fox News - RSP even has a note right where you linked explaining this. Kingsif (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Noted, apologies and ignore. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) * "'What a f***ing turnaround': Aussies lose it over double-edged joy in Matildas 'chaos'" - blog post A match report, not a blog. "FC Barcelona v Real Madrid CF: El Clásico combined XI – When stars collide" - fan site  Done * "Keira Walsh may be England's best ever regista" - fan site hosted by SBNation Perhaps the SBNation sources need their own discussion, RSP agreed that the use should depend on the author in 2020 (and the author of this particular article writes analysis for The Athletic - see here), while a discussion focused on All For XI (this source) came to a similar conclusion last year, but asked (didn't conclude) if BLPs should not accept it for SPS concerns. I'm not going to start the discussion here, but I am of the side that agrees that top-level journalists in women's football are still not platformed enough, so you will find their work at such venues, and that trying to write off all such sources is precisely the opposite of countering systemic bias in coverage of women's sports. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Love the argument, this can also come under WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "We're a bit late getting under way due to the earlier ceremomy where a number of individuals, including Lioness Keira Walsh were given the freedom of the borough" - twitter and unnecessary cite ie WP:OVERCITE  Done It was also used later for the exact date, but the council website has that information anyway "Our new rebrand, courtesy of @keira_walsh" - twitter, also irrelevant information "You can see one of Keira's match-worn shirts in Crossing the Line: The Story of Women's Football. The exhibition is on display until Saturday 10 December, exclusively at the Natural Football Museum". - same as above. the relevant context here would be that the museum had an exhibition of Walsh's shirts, not that they made a joke. reliable source that could be used for this: here.  Done the two above * "Inside, our #FIFAWorldCup columnist @keira_walsh sat down with @MalikOuzia_ to discuss the the [sic] tournament" - the image describes an interview, not a guest column. citation does not support the claim. To not point out the obvious, the text accompanying the image says (as you have quoted) our #FIFAWorldCup columnist @keira_walsh Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) All good, my bad. Sometimes you do have to point out the obvious as I'm too busy looking at detail. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Leesa Northwest Football Awards 2017 Highlights" - WP:RSPYT, more importantly an unnecessary overcite.  Done Removed as unneeded (forgot edit reason) Broken Please change the url status' to dead so the archive becomes the primary link, or otherwise remove cite and content if no archive available: "Midfielder Keira Walsh reflects on her road to the UEFA Women's Euro 2022" "FA Women's Premier League's North & South Results 30th March 2014" "Blue Moon Rising" "The World's Best Woman Playmaker 2019 (by IFFHS)" - website down, not sure if temporary or not, will give it 24hrs. "Markel Zubizarreta: "Cuando atraes la atención, atraes todo tipo de cosas" "IFFHS AWARDS 2022 - ALEXIA PUTELLAS, WOMEN'S WORLD BEST PLAYMAKER" - same IFFHS website host issue "Nordic Women's U-17's Cup Fixtures and Results 1st to 6th July 2013" "Liverpool Ladies 0-2 City Women: match report" "England v Latvia" - as the cite is a video, the archive is unavailable. "Womens Super League review" Sampson, Kirsti (2019). "Keira Walsh" - broken link? "Keira Walsh player profile" - archive of man city profile is broken, it's been moved to here it seems "Manchester City Women player stats" - the archive doesn't work to show player stats, original is broken, isn't needed either  Done with the following notes: IFFHS is working now You might want to check Manchester is Blue for RS, though ankle injury isn't particularly contentious and the information is in the "Catching up with... Keira Walsh" ref if there's any issue. WP:SOURCEACCESS I believe covers the England v Latvia broadcast, like articles on TV episodes allowing certain things to be sourced to the episodes themselves. Live broadcasts may be a point of debate - removed the effectively pointless archive link, though. The Kirsti Sampson link isn't broken if you go back far enough in Internet Archive, but I think it's unneeded, so I've removed it. The 2017 archived version of the Man City profile is what's being used at the moment, I've updated the cite template parameters and I'll check that everything in the article is in that version. - Removed as it didn't seem to be sourcing anything. On a personal note, it's annoying that WSU is broken, they used to broadcast lots of qualifying matches and still had a bunch of them up last I checked, but obviously those aren't archived. Kingsif (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) If we could swap the MIB ref with "Catching up with... Keira Walsh" that would be better, to avoid unnecessary linking to fan sites. Saying a player is injured could certainly be considered contentious. If for example they weren't injured, it could be considered defamation. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)  Done No cite data "Two changes to England Women's U17 Euro squad" "Casey Stoney to assist Mo Marley with England U19 training" "Thriller at SGP as Women's U19s draw with Norway" "Women's U20s squad for NTC Invitational tournament"  Done all Improvement List of sources that are reliable, but otherwise could better, or lack cite data. Not required for GA. "Borough praises England footballer Keira Walsh as role model" - syndicated from Lancashire Telegraph, ideally the original article would be cited This comment is confusing - the source with that title is citing Lancashire Telegraph. It has a photo from PA, the reporter is local to Lancashire Telegraph. What are you thinking isn't original? Kingsif (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Fixed it for you. "Original" source was there all along [2]  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Manchester City have now been eliminated from the #UWCL by Spanish opposition for 5⃣ consecutive seasons ..." - per WP:INSTAGRAM, is a better source available? The account is verified so not a major issue, but could be better. Replaced with Guardian. Kingsif (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Man City comfortably see off Birmingham" - original article is still available, url status should be live not dead  Done "I was on death's door and Jill's still on the bench!" | Jill Scott: European Champion, Jungle Queen & 'best warmer upper' | Keira Walsh & Georgia Stanway join Jill Scott & Ben Haines on the latest Coffee Club pod" - this link would be better pointing to original podcast with XX:XX reference of when the claim was made. The ref for the original podcast is already there, with time stamp, before ("Keira Walsh, Georgia Stanway & caterpillar cake"). The video you mention here is probably included for accessibility. Kingsif (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Noted. I've added timestamp, merged refs and changed to inhaler mask as per claim.  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I edited without seeing this comment - didn't change it back but the nebuliser/inhaler mask thing is a bit like pavement/sidewalk, except that "inhaler mask" is a descriptive label rather than actual name, really. Kingsif (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Questionable Sources that are questionable such as WP:BLOGS, but the authors/team are notable and therefore I believe the sources to be reliable. Note: This list referenced below is for any future reviewers so can be ignored by nominees for current review: Analytics FC The Offside Rule i-D YouTube video - video involves the subject so WP:RSPYT can be ignored Team Talk with... Keira Walsh | Crossing the Line same as above

Conclusion

This article undoubtedly meets all the criteria for GA standard after considerable work. I believe it to be not just "good enough" for GA, but simply a good article, if not great. Credit to main contributor @Kingsif for being patient with me, as well as support from nominee @Spiderone.

This is great news! Thank you so much for the review and thank you so much to Kingsif for essentially turning a mediocre article into what it is today, which no doubt took hours. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing gnomish cite data work! Honestly, mediocre is easier to make good than some better-looking articles that need a whole lot of V checks and making sure everything that was there already is balanced (see: the article for Alexia Putellas - my mission to raise the standards of all of Barça Femení's articles is going to take a while). Kingsif (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How's Lucy Bronze fairing for quality? I see you're main contrib there. Happy to review if you'd like, my current remit is generally England women's national team, under-23s and WSL players. Far from Barça, but there's an overlap here, and most importantly I'm not a contributor to that article. I recently assumed it could be GA class [3] (with some work and verification I imagine), and otherwise get the impression that you've recognised that many of my critics or suggestions can be boldly ignored, if indeed not a required for GA. Food for thought. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with anything and collaborate in the future, especially on the more mundane stuff as I'm better at the admin and consistency stuff rather than trying to build my own sentences. Most of the articles that I've got to GA already had solid prose and structure before I started working on them. I'm particularly keen on getting more articles relating to Spanish women's football up to GA - Putellas, Bonmatí and Bronze certainly look like they are not that far off GA and their articles are a really useful resource for football fans. I particularly like how most Spanish news sites don't have any paywalls as well, which makes article improvement so much easier than with, say, German women's football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor and Spiderone: Yeah, Bronze and Putellas' articles are ones that were bigger when I started working on them, so there's even more source-article text integrity checks that I would like to make sure get done. And, especially with the Putellas one, there are sections nearly bare and some that have intense detail, so focus issues I'm trying to smooth over. They're what I meant with some of the better-looking articles having things that at least need a thorough check, so overall harder to improve. As those players also have a very big profile and have been touted as the best ever, managing coverage of that is also complex - any contributions appreciated! Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that footballer Keira Walsh first captained England in 2018, when she was the youngest player in the squad?
  • ALT1: ... that Keira Walsh was recognised for her talent in badminton before becoming a footballer?
  • ALT2: ... that footballer Keira Walsh made celebrated long ball passes to assist goals in the final matches of the 2019 SheBelieves Cup and 2022 UEFA Women's Euro, winning both with England?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sasaki Tōichi
  • Comment: Of my suggestions, I prefer the simplicity of alt0 or the combination of alt2; I am sure there are plenty of things that could be turned into hooks, happy for anyone to make suggestions. Could be an image hook; the infobox image would particularly work for alt0 as (though not the same match) it's playing for England in 2018.

Improved to Good Article status by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Keira Walsh; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• *General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Kingsif: the article is new enough, long enough and the first and second hook is interesting, though I think the third one may link too much and take away from the actual centrepiece of the hook. However, none of the hooks you proposed have been sourced in your nomination, please update it with a reliable source. TheBritinator (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheBritinator: The QPQ is clearly listed and there is no requirement for a nom to list sources - but there is a requirement for reviewers to check the sources are in the article regardless. To wit, I deliberately disinclude sources in noms, to make sure reviewers actually do the checks they are supposed to. The nom is fine, the review is not. Kingsif (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, I am not aware of any requirement of listing sources, but it would be a act of good faith in speeding this process up if you could provide the sources of your hooks, given the size of the article. However, if you insist, I will look for it myself. TheBritinator (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheBritinator: It is not me insisting, part of reviewing a DYK includes checking that 1. the hook fact is in the article, 2. the hook fact is sourced in the article, preferably directly in-line, and 3. the hook and article text is supported by sources in the article. You cannot do all this without going to the article and looking for yourself. As I said, I do not include sources in noms because lazy reviewers are liable to skip at least two of those things and just check the hook is supported by the source given in the nom, not bothering to check location of source in article or if the sources in nom are even used in article. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Go with the first hook. Found the sources here and here. TheBritinator (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)