Talk:Vanessa Rousso/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

First, regarding User:Wizardman's comment, I think its not uncommon for bibliographies to state the most notable facts up front, even if they don't particularly have a place elsewhere in the article. A big, if simple, thing I would want to see is the "Poker career" being divided into subsections of 3-4 paragraphs, such as "beginnings", "rise to fame", or "recent success." There are five short paragraphs of three sentences or fewer that should be combined into more substantial ones, especially the second and third paragraphs in the career section. Also, the bit about her marriage could also move to the "Background" section, while maybe noting their connection and meeting as professionals in the career section.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I'd change "says her mother" to "according to her mother" if its not a quote, and move the sentence about her mother's job next to that. The "waterloo" sentence seems disconnected, maybe it could use further context, and Waterloo shouldn't be linked as it is the metaphor, not the geographic place. Things that also shouldn't be linked include "violinist" and "minor", and I had to check it out, but linking € here is correct. Also, is it "Swimsuit Edition", "Swimsuit edition", or "Swimsuit Issue"? This should also be liked again in the Endorsements section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The reliance on sites like Pokerpages.com will leave the article open to future issues of reliability, though since those sites are mainly currently used for statistics, I don't see a problem right now.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Because this is such a male dominated game, editors might note that while Rousso finished sixtieth or so in these tournaments, she appears to be consistently in the top three or four women in the fields. I think her prominence as a female could be a main focus throughout.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issue. Editors should split off her lobbying and political efforts into a separate section. That would make it easier should controversy arise. Maybe the info about her camp could go in there since its not strictly about tournament play.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   There do seem to be a high number or reverts, over topics such as game theory, her marriage, and her status as French. Seek to bring explanations more onto the talk page when reverting.

6. 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):

   The one image is fine, and even was on the front page I see.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good article, but better organization with more sections could really make it more readable. And try a table or list to organize her career, with tournament dates, locations, and her results. The last paragraph in the career section would work better that way. I found a similar one on Scotty Nguyen, and there seems to be a pattern that could be followed.--Patrick «» 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first problem I noticed with this article is the lead. The lead is basically a bunch of facts about her that, for the most part, don't appear elsewhere in the article, and that's a worrying thought. I would either try and mesh what in the lead within the article, or just rewrite the lead entirely, to start. Wizardman 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)