Jump to content

Talk:Sampson Hosking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnFromPinckney (talk · contribs) 11:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be starting this later today/tonight. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thejoebloggsblog, I'm sorry for the delay; this took longer than I expected to get through. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Generally, yes, at least the writing and spelling. But: see below for my (copious) grammar and punctuation notes.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Yes, with exception of rather sparse lede, as noted in Coverage notes below.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Looks very good, with the exceptions of infobox and birth/death dates. See Referencing notes below.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No problems found, nothing stands out to me. Also run through Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    See Coverage notes below.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    See last item in Coverage notes below.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    See Images notes below
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    See Images notes below
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Notes

[edit]

Writing, grammar, punctuation

[edit]

On the first run-through, "fail" mostly for the large quantity of nits I was able to pick. These are all easily fixable, though they may take quite a bit of time. The fundamental writing is solid (although I'm allergic to "would go on to be" formulations); there are mainly just a few phrasing I think need improvement, plus a big heap of styling and punctuation quibbles:

Done (I think?) Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • I'd expect a comma after "Hosking grew up in close proximity to the Port River".
Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football career

Coaching career

Horse racing

See also

Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

I am quite impressed with the fastidious referencing. There are only a few issues, the bulk of which are stylistic (titles in CAPS) or the matter of reuse:

Coverage

[edit]
  • The body seems to cover it pretty well. There is a lot of detail, but it keeps moving logically and I do not find a lot of crufty trivia, although revealing that he had two children (mentioned in his wife's death notice) would be appropriate (and was his whole life only football, horse racing and a bit of bowling?).
  • However, the three-sentence (and truly concise) lede is rather short relative to the length of the article. For example, in regard to his coaching, it says he was "accomplished football coach successfully leading Port Adelaide", which is somewhat understating his apparent effect and visibility even away from the pitch. Can we expand the summary a bit on his impact as coach (and maybe player) in the lede?
    Added a little bit more.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say nothing about his death. He resigned due to vague health issues, but then what? This is a large issue for me. There's a headstone photo for him and his wife (death dates only) at Find a Grave, but can you find something more substantial?
  • No need for repeated full name "Sampson Hosking" per MOS:FULLNAME. I see no need for details like "Tuesday", "Thursday", etc.
    Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still three cases of inappropriate first name:
    "...the first year Sampson was coach..."
    "...subsequently forcing Sampson to give league debuts..."
    "...with whom Sampson would run up and down the length..."
    One "Thursday" left in a ref. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The australianfootball.com ref mentioned in the infobox has a paragraph about his self-confessed reputation as "one of the dirtiest players who ever stripped", but I don't see this mentioned in the article, only that he won a fairness award (once, although australianfootball.com says "twice"). Maybe something should be added to "Playing style", near the booing bit at the end. Or is there a reason you've left this out (or have I somehow overlooked it)?
    Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't explicitly give his nationality in the lede (or anywhere), but given that the word "Australian" apperas twice in the first sentence, I am loathe to try to shoehorn another one in there. I think it is suitably clear to the average reader that we don't need to do anything further here.
    Added first sentence in early life so that it now states that he was born in "Glanville, South Australia". Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neatly done; this must surely be sufficient for a GA. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Currently unsure about the caricature, which claims to be PD in the US due to publication before 1926. It was published in Australia, so I want to check that there's no problem there. Many other images make the same claim to PD in the US. I will come back to this later.
    Apparently you adjusted the rationale on 18 Jan., so I'm happy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Steeplechase image is a nice addition for the Horse racing section, but it's a pity the photo is of such poor quality. The source article in The Advertiser (via Trove) has a better version, where one can make out the horses trailing Hosking's steed. It would be good if we could get a better image, but I certainly won't deny GA because of this one.
    If you want to change the photo thats fine by me. Oakbank is a much more prestigious race than Murray Bridge though. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't thinking of using a different race, necessarily, so much as hoping for a better version of this shot. It's rather grainy, having been scanned, copied, cropped, enlarged and what have you, so it's hard to make out the contents. I'm no good with images, though, so I don't know how best to get something closer to the paper's original version. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost every caption uses "Sampson Hosking" instead of, at most, "Hosking". And non-sentence captions (as in the infobox image) should have no full stop, per MOS:CAPFRAG.
    Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rather long infobox competes with the first 6 images for space, leading to a feeling of crowdedness, and some MOS:SANDWICH effects. Is there some way to move a couple of these images farther down (or completely out)? I won't hold back GA for this, but I think the second pic (in his Centrals uniform) could be moved down to the start of "Football career" and the other images shifted accordingly. And the "Collingwood Disconsolate" shot from 1910 might not meet "appropriate" use, as it very poorly helps the reader see how disconsolate Hosking's opponents were. You can't actually see anything except about eight unidentifiable figures on a pitch. Would you consider throwing this one out?
    "Collingwood Disconsolate" image removed. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JohnFromPinckney: From what I can tell copyright over all photos and artistic works in Australia has expired if they were produced before 1 January 1955. This is stated on the first page of this PDF produced by the Australian Copyright Council [[1]] Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'm not worried about the availability of the image or our use of it on this article; it's just the rationale attached to the caricature file I mentioned above is based on US copyright law, which I believe shouldn't apply here. But that's the image's problem, not this article's. I still intend to follow up with someone about this but I won't hold the GA for it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you adjusted the rationale on 18 Jan., so I'm happy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New, 11 January

[edit]

@Thejoebloggsblog: I've noticed your first slew of fixes (thanks!), and as your reward, I have found a few more items. Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

@JohnFromPinckney: Do you know much about the DYK rules? Apparently it is only for new articles. Is there an exception for newly appraised good articles? One fact about Hosking that I think is quirky was him selecting himself to be in the side whilst coach in his 40s.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. This article wouldn't qualify, I'm afraid. It is indeed for new articles (7 days old) but a special case of "new" is when the article's been expanded fivefold in the last seven days, which this page hasn't been. (It's five times bigger than what it was in mid-September, so we'd be a little late to the DYK party.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thejoebloggsblog, should this pass its Good Article review, it would be eligible for DYK. Please see 1. f. under DYK criteria. You will need to nominate it within seven days of the article becoming a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Sampson Hosking wearing a Port Adelaide guernsey.
Sampson Hosking wearing a Port Adelaide guernsey.
  • ... that Australian rules football coach Sampson Hosking named himself in Port Adelaide's team at the age of 48? Source: Despite having retired from playing after 1921, he played two matches in 1927, and in 1936 he became the oldest SANFL player when, at the age of 48 years and 154 days whilst Port Adelaide coach, he named himself on the bench in his side against West Torrens.[1][2]
    • Comment: This is the oldest an Australian rules footballer has been named in an SANFL side (Port Gazette: Alberton's Shining Star). For more context, afltables.com.au lists the 3 oldest VFL/AFL players as Vic Cumberland (43), Dustin Fletcher (40), Jack Leith (39). In the WAFL the oldest player was Walter Watts (44). This means that Sampson Hosking is the oldest player in the three senior state leagues (VFL/AFL, SANFL and WAFL).

Improved to Good Article status by Thejoebloggsblog (talk). Self-nominated at 02:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • checkY Article is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 2 February, nominated 3 February), and article is within policy
  • checkY Hook is short enough, interesting (as unusual to play sport at that age, and to pick yourself), in the article, and well cited
  • checkY Image is public domain in both US and Australia (I added Australia PD tag to the image), in the article, and looks good at low resolution
  • checkY QPQ exempt, as the user has 0 previous DYK nominations
  • Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P2 without image

  1. ^ Atkinson, G. (1982) Everything you ever wanted to know about Australian rules football but couldn't be bothered asking, The Five Mile Press: Melbourne, p. 61.
  2. ^ "Tactics Play Part In Port Win". The Mail. Vol. 25, no. 1, 254. South Australia. 6 June 1936. p. 15. Retrieved 29 October 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sampson_Hosking&oldid=1207645818"