Talk:Edith Motridge

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Suntooooth (talk · contribs) 19:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• I did a bit of a search through sources and did not find any significant sources that have not been considered. There are quite a few passing press mentions, but even in Esther Williams' autobiography The Million Dollar Mermaid, Motridge is mentioned only once, in a picture caption. Notability is not part of the GA criteria but, for what it's worth, I think there is just about enough independent coverage in reliable sources to argue that Motridge meets WP:GNG.
• Copyvio check - only low matches (3.8%) found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and these turned out to be phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED such as "as Esther Williams' stunt double and" and "they moved to Fairbanks Ranch".
• Suitable FUR for the infobox picture.

• Spot check on "Motridge was born in San Francisco on July 30, 1913," - no issues.
• Spot check on "At the 1936 Summer Olympics, Motridge placed fourth in the women's 100-meter backstroke with a time of 1:19.6" - no issues.
• Sot check on "She was also the US champion in the 100m backstroke in 1939" - no issues.
• Spot check on "beginning in 1945 as a background character in Without Love." - not all supported by the source cited.

• The LA Times source dated November 6, 2007 appears to be a death notice and so likely isn't independent. Most of the information supported by that source is fairly straightforward, but "She worked on all swimming films made by MGM" would be better using the Olympics.com source. (Looks like they may have copied from the death notice, but not much we can do about that.)
• Spot check on "They had three children and four grandchildren" - no issues (I think the LA Times obit is OK for this)
• Spot check on "Motridge died on November 1, 2007, at her home in Fairbanks Ranch" - no issues (I think the LA Times obit is OK for this)
• Spot check on "Throughout their partnership they were involved in philanthropic efforts" - no issues (I think the LA Times obit is OK for this, taken in conjunction with the San Diego Union-Tribune source)
• "which gives $25,000–$30,000 scholarships to students in North County, California." - as the source is about 25 years old, suggest rephrasing this (e.g. mention that those amounts were in 1999)
• Marquis Who's Who is considered "generally unreliable" according to WP:RSP
• Optional for a GA, but MOS:ALLCAPS states "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article."
• Optionally, you could add her height in the infobox (a few sources mention it)
• I couldn't see explicit support in the article for the statement "she was most well-known as Esther Williams' stand-in" in the Lead.
• I think something from the Personal life section should be added to the lead, so it better reflects the scope of the article. Also consider adding in that Motridge finished fourth in the Olympics.

@BennyOnTheLoose: Changes I've made:

• Expanded the lead to include info from the personal life section + the detail that she came fourth in the Olympics, as well as fixing the "most well-known for" part of the lead
• Changed the source for "she worked on all swimming films made by MGM" to the Olympics.com source
• Specified that the scholarship amount was reported in 1999
• Removed the Marquis Who's Who citation (it was only for a very inconsequential bit of information anyway)
• Changed some wording in the sentence ending with the info about her role in Without Love so that it's supported by the source

Also, a comment on your note about the significant sources: Honestly, I'd hope that I hadn't missed any significant sources – I spent quite a long time looking through Google Books and newspaper results for anything I could add to this article! :P

Hopefully this is all good – let me know, and thanks for the review :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 03:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Suntooooth. I'm satisfied that the article, short as it it, meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.