Talk:2018 Geelong Football Club season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 07:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. I have previously reviewed DYKs and FLCs, but this will be my first GA review. – Teratix ₵ 07:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• None of the quick-fail criteria apply.
• The article is obviously stable and uses freely licensed images, so 5 and 6a can be checked off immediately.
• Earwig picked up one suspected copyright violation, but I'm confident the content in question appeared on Wikipedia first. However, it also picked up a small fragment which strays a bit too close to the source's phrasing in my view, and may require a minor adjustment. Compare:
  • Dangerfield collected 31 disposals in his first game back from injury, with Ablett (35) and Selwood (29) also featuring prominently. (Wikipedia)
  • Dangerfield, returning from his hamstring strain, had the biggest impact with 31 disposals, while Ablett (35) and Selwood (29) were also prolific. (AFL.com.au)
• I'll review the prose soon – Teratix ₵ 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Prose and structure

• Either Geelong was ... or Geelong were ... is fine, but the article's usage varies – ideally this is consistent throughout (but technically not required for GA)
• the eighth season under senior coach Chris Scott – shouldn't this read "the team's eighth season" or "the club's eighth season"?
• Joel Selwood appointed as club captain this phrasing makes it sound like captains are reappointed annually – is this actually the case? (also appears in article body) (I guess you learn something new every day!)
• Geelong was subsequently defeated no need for "subsequent" (also appears in article body)
• as well as a women's team just "and" instead of "as well as" should be fine
• each responsible for specific positions during games but I'd imagine these coaches were also responsible for these positions outside of matchplay as well?
• made up by – I'd say "made up of", but that might just be me
• Geelong utilised 40 players – "used" is a bit more concise
• narrowly winning the game by three points cut "the game"
• Kelly played his debut game in round one, and finished joint runners-up for the Carji Greeves Medal runners-up → runner-up
• In the lead up to the following week's match hyphenate lead-up?
• 18-point loss in round 13 by reigning premiers Richmond I'd say a loss to, rather than by
• another opportunity to win after the siren against Melbourne in round 18, this time Zach Tuohy scored avoid the comma splice
• Shouldn't the key go above the results tables?
• the Tom Harley Award, for best representing the club's values this is a bit vague
• Dangerfield and Tom Stewart were all selected probably don't need to say "all", considering there's only two players mentioned
• Blicavs and Tom Hawkins were initially shortlisted cut "initially"
• losing to the Casey Demons in an elimination final source says this was a qualifying final (which would make a bit more sense considering they played the following week!)

Sourcing

• All even refs spot-checked
  • ref 16: could replace with this AFL.com.au source, slightly more up-to-date and a bit more independent-looking
  • ref 34: don't see how this supports the claim that Hawkins finished third overall in the Coleman (and ref 33 should be moved after the semicolon because it doesn't support anything in the latter part of the sentence).
  • ref 48:
    • doesn't support any claims about the structure of the AFL season in general, only about Geelong's season specifically.
    • There is a recent consensus that headlines are considered unreliable, and the claim that the nine home games at Kardinia are the most since 1999 is not repeated in the article proper. If this wasn't a GA review I'd probably let this slide, but the standard of reliability is a touch higher than usual here.
  • ref 66: duplicate of ref 49
• ref 77: What makes Austadiums reliable? Their website seems to indicate they accept user-generated content (see also "Website Credits"). The citation also omits their publisher, CV Media.
• Refs are inconsistent in whether to give Fairfax Media's location.
• Linking websites/publishers is also inconsistent (Seven West Media linked, The Age/Fairfax linked a couple of times but not on first use, Telstra Media and News Corp sites never linked etc.)
• Ext. links: do readers really need a link to the AFL website?
• Just for the record, geelongcats.com.au is used to reference a significant portion of the article – roughly a fifth of the references are to this site, which seems problematic at first glance, since the site is directly affiliated with the club. However, after combing through their usage it seems they are just being used either (1) as a link to AFL.com.au no longer available on the main site (2) for obviously uncontroversial information (e.g. draft picks) or (3) to provide additional details that are not noted in better sources. Its usage seems fine in these contexts. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

General comments

Overall, I believe this article is well on the way to GA status; the points listed above are quite easy to fix. However, I have one broader critique to make. The article at present certainly hosts a detailed collection of objective facts and statistics about Geelong's season. Yet it seems to lack much information about expectations and reactions to Geelong's season, which, in my view, is necessary to meet the "broad coverage" criteria. The reader might come away from the article knowing every Geelong player, trade, match result and award recipient for 2018, but unable to discern whether Geelong's season was considered excellent, poor or somewhere in between. How was Geelong's trading and drafting evaluated? Considering the Cats' performance in 2017, did they play above or below expectations? The reader should be able to find at least a consideration of these questions and a summary of major viewpoints, even if there is no objective answer. (I think these points would also apply to your other Geelong season GA). – Teratix ₵ 13:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Teratix: Thanks for your review! I have completed all your suggested fixes above (except for the table key, I couldn't find any hard and fast rules as to where it should be placed). I like your suggestion to include analysis for the season/draft/trades, so I will work this week on getting this included :) Allied45 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Allied45: Sure, I'll put the review on hold until the end of the month while you work on this. Let me know if you need more time. – Teratix ₵ 10:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Teratix: I have now added this to the "Changes" and "Season summary" sections, please let me know what you think! Also in regards to your query: clubs generally do reappoint captains annually (usually done via a vote with players and coaches). Allied45 (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting to this. I've completed a source review, and your November updates have addressed my general concerns with the article. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teratix: Thanks! Can the review box be updated from 'on hold'? Allied45 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There were just a few issues I picked up in the source review, but I think they should be fairly easy to address. Once those are cleared up I can pass the article. – Teratix ₵ 01:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teratix: Sorry, I completely missed that you had already added your source review comments! For ref 48, I have reworded the sentence as I could not find any suitable citations. Let me know what you think! Allied45 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks all good now, I'm happy to pass this nomination. – Teratix ₵ 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)