Talk:Sonny Bill Williams/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Haven't forgotten about this; life got busy and the article is long so I haven't had time to give it the look through it needs. I'll have a review done around the end of tomorrow. Wugapodes (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "the highest levels" These should be explicitly stated, especially in the lead, because people (like me) may not be sure what the highest levels are.

2. "known in both codes" What is a "code"? Is that like one of the different league/rulesets? That should be clarified, especially in the lead.

3. "suspending his boxing career to focus on football" Is football here meaning rugby? football is too ambiguous, especially for someone doing so many sports. The explicit type of football should be stated.

4. "the son of John and Lee (née Woolsey)" Why the parentheses? Are those important?

5. The second paragraph of "Early life" is a little heavy on quotes. Is there any way they can be paraphrased and incorporated into the prose? See overusing quotations for some recommendations and an explanation of why it causes problems with things like readability.

6. "He also represented NSW as a junior" Who are/is NSW? The acronym should be spelled out the first time it appears.

7. "The largest offer was rumoured to be about $3 million from UK Super League club St Helens." Is listing rumors typical in sports articles? I feel like this might have verifiability issues since it is a rumor, but it has a reliable source so I'm unsure. If it's common, I'll let it go, but I'm unsure about it.

8. "Williams later dismissed claims he was injury prone as "bullshit"." I'm not sure this is necessary for the article, though I'd be willing to hear a rationale for keeping it.

9. In the Roosters Section, I'm not entirely sure we need a list of the first seven tries he scored. I feel like that section is a little overly detailed and could stand to be trimmed down as a whole to focus only on the more notable games.

10. "described as the greatest act of treachery in the game's history" This should probably be a direct quote and state who said it.

11. In the Crusaders section, the first paragraph could stand to be cut down a lot. It basically reads like an indiscriminate list of appearances which isn't really encyclopedic information. It may be the writing style, but I really doubt the benefit of a weekly run down of the games he played particularly since the notability of those games has more to do with the game itself than anything he did as a player. For example, he had nothing to do with "the first Super Rugby match played outside of New Zealand, Australia or South Africa" besides playing in it, which is cool, but tells me very little about the actual subject and reads more like trivia.

12. "The Panasonic deal was thought to be the largest one-season contract in rugby union history." By whom? It should be stated in the article who thought that.

13. The Boxing section needs a rewrite. First, each subsection is about one paragraph, which is advised against per WP:Paragraphs. Second, it suffers from a similar problem as above, where it reads like trivia rather than encyclopedic information. I highly doubt that most of those fights warrant their own paragraph, a sentence or two, probably, and maybe a paragraph for the one where he won a title, but a paragraph for each seems to get off into trivia territory again.

14. The Personal Life section seems, again, like an unconnected series of trivia and coat-racks for his family members.

15. The honours section reads like a resume and seems overly promotional, particularly since it's just a list. I'm unsure why these aren't incorporated into the text particularly since the article does a good job of chronologically describing his life. The second list is especially unnecesary since it's a list of teams that have already been covered and things that could easily be covered in the section on the team.

• "(as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club)" I'm not sure this needs to be paranthetical. This may be nitpicking though. Consider revising, but if you don't want to, I won't hold it against you.
• The citations in the article seem to use two different styles, or are not made to look consistent. This should be fixed at some point.

Results

On Hold for 7 days pending revisions. I think this article needs a lot of work to satisfy criteria 1b and 3b, but I think it can be done, so I'm putting it on hold rather than failing it right now. The biggest problem is the amount of trivia and coat-racking. Part of the problem I think is the overuse of sections and the lack of summary of the information. If you need further clarification on anything, let me know and I'll do my best to help you. Wugapodes (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Not Listed I'm closing the review as none of the problems have been addressed. If other editors wanted to fix them and renom, I think it would stand a much better chance of passing. Wugapodes (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)