Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daisy Pearce/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2022 [1].

Daisy Pearce

edit
Nominator(s): 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Daisy Pearce, one of women's Australian rules football's leading pioneers and a prominent current player/media personality (and future coach, if the recent news is anything to go by). I've put a fair bit of time and research into this one, and got it to GA status last year, so keen to know what you guys think/how you guys might like me to improve it further – thanks! Kind regards, 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

edit

How can I not review "Daisy"! Expect some comments soon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has clearly taken a lot of effort to write and improve this article, and all your work is very much appreciated. The first thing, and perhaps the most major point that concerned me is the sources. I'll admit have just read the lead, but from a look at sources, I see various sources whose reliability cannot really be judged. For featured articles, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources". How are "afl.com.au", "SportsTG", "AFL Community", "girlsplayfooty.com", etc. the reliable sources of highest quality? Another issue with the sourcing is use of many primary sources: "westernbulldogs.com.au", "melbournefc.com.au", "aflplayers.com.au", "womens.afl". 71 of the 175 sources are directly or indirectly from the website of Australian Football League (AFL), a primary source. There are also other issues like overuse of direct quotations in "Legacy" section, duplicate linking, adding Instagram link in External links, etc. Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article, and why does the article meets WP:FA?#2c? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources, most if not all of the bits of information that just cite a single source, whether it be The Australian or melbournefc.com.au, only cite those sources because they were the only ones that I could find for those tidbits; some of the time, I might have used a club website as a second or third source when something like SEN or Fox Sports was already there – if you want me to remove those instances where there's already a better source, more than happy to, but a lot of the time when you see something from AFL Media (afl.com.au or womens.afl), it's probably because it was the only thing I could find/that was reporting on that particular piece of information. Granted, SportsTG, AFL Community and girlsplayfooty.com might not be the Herald Sun, but they were, again, the only ones I could find/that were reporting on that tidbit. I would argue that AFL Media is independent from the AFL and not just a primary source that's biased/selective in the content that it produces, as it produces stories about the good, bad and the ugly in the AFL world (even at AFL HQ), same as the newspapers and TV/radio networks, but that's a whole other story – my point being that because it gives such a wide coverage of the AFL and AFLW, hasn't been shown to necessarily be given preferential treatment by the league or its clubs and (I would argue) very reliable from a journalism standpoint, I'm not sure that it should necessarily be brushed off as a primary source/unusable in a featured article, but hey, that might not amount to much.
As for how I found sources, I follow AFL Media pretty closely for the reasons above, but in some cases, I'll also do a Google search to find other sources on certain bits of information. Before the article reached GA status, it had bits of information that were unsourced or improperly sourced, so I did the best I could to Google these areas to find what sources I could and include them if I thought that they were reliable enough – some periods of Pearce's life/career were more widely reported on than others, clearly, and there were certain bits of information that I was forced to remove/leave out because I couldn't really find anything to source it with, so I believe that the article's been improved from that standpoint. Regarding your last question, did you mean 2c or 1c? I believe that I've maintained a consistent use and format of citations throughout the article, but if I'm wrong, please let me know how I can improve this further.
Otherwise, let me know if any of this makes sense/you need further clarification, and otherwise what else needs doing – I'm fairly new to this process/the jump to featured article status, but keen to learn and take on what I can, even if it's because the article isn't quite ready yet. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By over-linking, I was particularly referring to double linking in the prose itself (independent of lead), like AFL Players Association, but I'm confident you'll fix that too. Multiple links to sections withing the same article is allowed. So if I understand you correctly, the article has various information which only a particular sources cite. Then why is that information important enough to be mentioned in the article? If there is something significant, I'd expect a lot of media commentary on it. Even if AFL Media is independent from the AFL, and even if it is reliable, what makes it among the highest quality of reliable sources? Don't get me wrong, I know almost nothing about sports; this is entirely a non-expert's perspective, but I think we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts. Are there no books/academic work about her life? Regarding my last point, I meant 1c, apologies. All in all, I don't think you'll get a consensus here that sourced are WP:HQRS. I am not convinced that the article meets the criteria, at-least for sourcing. I won't oppose, but I am suggesting withdrawal (changed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)). But please don't be discouraged, we need more FAs about women, especially in sports. I'll be happy to give this article a review outside of FAC once all the sourcing concerns are resolved. I am open to reconsider, if other feel the other way. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, per this discussion, I have been requested to provide some sources not used in the article. Here are the sources:
    • Fedele, Robert (2017). "Midwife Blossoms Into AFL Star". Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal. 24 (8). Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. ISSN 2202-7114. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
    • Pippos, Angela (2017). Breaking the Mould. Affirm Press. ISBN 978-1-925475-29-6 – via Google Books.
    • Faganel, Armand; Rižnar, Igor; Baruca, Arne, eds. (2021). Impacts and Implications for the Sports Industry in the Post-Covid-19 Era. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-6782-1.
    • Lynch, Jackie (2018). "State of the AFLW Nation". Green Left Weekly. 1171. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
    • Sources mentioned by Steelkamp below are not repeated here. The 2nd and 3rd might help a bit, but I think the other two (especially the 1st) discusses the topic in bit detail. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have struck my suggestion to withdraw, but my concerns stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

edit

I'll review this article. Noting I reviewed it for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting above that Kavyansh.Singh's comments above are blatantly sexist. They make an assertion that "we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts". That essentially implies that biographies should not be able to be made into FAs if the subject doesn't receive a very wide range of coverage, an issue that much more frequently affects women than men. I would recommend their review be disregarded by the coordinators. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my comments were "blatantly sexist". I never intended to say that. We need sport biographies in FAC, for both man and woman, equally. My comment regarding that encyclopedia articles should mostly have widely reported facts meant to imply that if a particular piece of information is covered only in 1-2 sources, that too a primary one, why is it significant enough to mention then? My suggestion to withdraw is in accordance with the FA criteria; I have no issues with you disagreeing on that. But I don't think my comments should be "disregarded". It is upto @FAC coordinators: to determine if my comments are in accordance with the criteria or not. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I said. It is up to the coordinators to decide whether to take your review into account. I am merely suggesting that they do not. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although higher standard for sourcing or WP:DUE arguably impacts biographies of women more than men, I do not agree that it's sexist. All reviews are taken into account to determine consensus to promote, to the extent that they are based on the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind WP:AGF. Also that a nominator should address a review, not the reviewer. As Buidhe says, all reviews and comments are taken into account when closing. Ones bearing on whether the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" will be weighted heavily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • in the AFL Women's (add "competition" so that the sentence ends on a noun)
  • One of women's Australian rules football's first superstars <<<=== In-between this and the old statement of "Widely regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football", I would suggest the intermediate "Often regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football" to be more complete without potentially making too strong of a statement
  • having (add "already" or "previously") captained the club in the women's exhibition games in the years prior
  • seven as captain ===>>> seven times as captain
  • "VFL Women's (VFLW)" ===>>> VFL Women's (VFLW) competition
  • Pearce is a dual AFL Women's All-Australian, having been named as captain in the 2017 team and vice-captain in the 2018 team, and won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards. <<<=== This sentence doesn't have parallelism. I'd suggest splitting off the second part as "She won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards."
  • "media performer" <<<=== I'm not sure "performer" is the correct word (unless it's an Australian English thing?) Maybe "media personality" would be better?
Early life
  • Okay.
State
  • She was named in the carnival's All-Australian team <<<=== I might suggest calling it the "National Championships' All-Australian team" instead, since I don't think it's obvious that is what carnival is referring to.
  • with Pearce named among the best players in the grand final ===>>> a game in which Pearce was named among the best players. (to avoid "with" and repeating "grand final")
  • Darebin would go on to win five VWFL premierships in a row, before losing to St Albans in the grand final in 2011; Pearce, who had by then become captain, was named Darebin's best player in the loss <<<=== Combined with the previous sentence, it says Pearce was among the best players in 2007 and was the team's best player in 2011. But what about the other years in the five VWFL premierships in a row? Do you have that information?
  • In 2013, Darebin again went through the season undefeated, defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final.[21] Darebin repeated this feat in 2014, again going through the season without a loss and defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was named best afield in the grand final. <<<=== Combine these two sentences to something like "In both 2013 and 2014, Darebin again went through the season undefeated. In both years, they defeated Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final."
  • She would also feature in Darebin's third ===>>> She also featured in Darebin's third
  • "with Darebin named among the ten teams" ===>>> "and Darebin named among the ten teams" (avoid "with")
  • "She would also play in Darebin's grand final win" ===>>> She also played in Darebin's grand final win
Exhibition
  • The top 50 female footballers in Australia ===>>> Fifty of the top female footballers in Australia (it's not literally the top 50)
  • "Pearce was selected by Melbourne with the first selection in the draft" ===>>> "Pearce was selected by Melbourne first overall in the draft"
  • with the first to be held ==>>> the first to be held
  • "with Melbourne playing two games" ===>>> "in which Melbourne would play two games"
2017
  • the Melbourne's inaugural match ===>>> Melbourne's inaugural match
  • and won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award ===>>> . She won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award
  • meaning that she would miss the 2019 season ===>>> which would result in her missing the 2019 season
2020
  • with coach Mick Stinear saying ===>>> ; coach Mick Stinear stated
  • She played her first AFLW match ===>>> Pearce played her first AFLW match (unclear "She" with Black in the previous sentence)
  • half-back (add "in defence" to clarify)
  • without a premiership being awarded due to the worsening pandemic ===>>> with no premiership awarded due to the worsening pandemic
  • Pearce went on to be selected ===>>> Pearce was selected
  • two goals from 13 disposals ===>>> two goals from 13 disposals,
  • with Pearce saying ===>>> and Pearce herself stated
  • Pearce also received five coaches' votes <<<=== Unless the coaches votes are a new thing, I would leave this out given that you never mention them before. (As in, wouldn't she have received coaches votes before?)
Playing style
  • A few pairs of citations are not in numerical order.
  • her ability to threaten <<<=== specify what she is threatening
Statistics
  • Okay.
Honours
  • Okay.
Media
  • Clarify that Triple M is a radio network (or radio station?).
Advocacy
  • Okay.
Coaching
  • with Pearce to complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation ===>>> in which Pearce would complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation
  • Explain what AFL level three coaching accreditation means, maybe just in a footnote.
Legacy
  • You can put back the "face of" statement, but state who calls her that (e.g. the media, I think? or maybe other players?)
Personal
  • Pearce began working as a midwife <<<=== if known, state at what age?
  • she currently divides ===>>> she has since divided (avoid "currently" per MOS:RELTIME)
Overall
  • I don't share the concerns above about not using game reports because they are primary sources. This is pretty typical of most past sports FA articles. I'm not even sure I agree that game reports count as primary sources. (Relatedly, a book source would be nice, but you can't ask for one if it doesn't exist.)
  • Use IABot to archive all the sources.
  • In particular, I noticed this one doesn't work any more.
  • There are a few instances of using ALLCAPS in parts of some references where it is not needed (e.g. "COMMENT", "THE W SHOW IS HERE").

Overall, it looks like it's in pretty good shape. The content looks very thorough and well-organized. I intend to support after the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Sportsfan77777. I think I've covered most, if not all, of your feedback – let me know what you think/if there's anything more that you wanted to throw in there (given I've also added a little bit since you gave your review). Thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second read-through
  • "was selected by Melbourne with the first selection" <<<=== to avoid "select" twice, would "was selected by Melbourne with the first overall pick" be Australian English enough? Or "was taken by Melbourne with the first selection"? --- This issue is in the lead and the body.
  • before the first exhibition game ===>>> for the first women's exhibition game
  • Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 prior to the competition's first season. ===>>> Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 for the competition's first season the following year. (the year is more important to clarify)
  • She also won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards <<<=== You don't need the "also" here.
  • If the book source disagrees with her birthplace, add a footnote stating the alternative possibility.
  • Specify "Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG)" in the first mention
  • and Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. ===>>> Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. (start a new sentence)
  • The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season was ===>>> The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season were
  • Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 ===>>> Pearce won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016
Source comments
  • There is still unnecessary all caps ("LISTEN", "UPDATE", "DEE-MOLITION") left in the sources.
  • I do think AustralianFootball.com is definitely a high-quality reliable source, per 4TheWynne's reply to Hawkeye.
  • Both of the SportsTG sources are really content published by the VWFL (it says it's the official VWFL website). Whether it's republished or that's where they published it originally, I don't know. Either way, the publisher should be listed as the "VWFL", not "SportsTG".
  • Similarly, the first Footy Almanac source is also published by the VWFL, and should have VWFL as the publisher.
  • In the second Footy Alamanac source, the one comment (from one of the website administrators) specifies that the author of the piece is the same author (Leesa Catto, who works for the VWFL) as the first Footy Almanac source, so I would assume it is also published through the VWFL. I would recommend putting Catto as the author and VWFL as the publisher just like the first source.
  • You don't need the Instagram source. (Both usages are covered by the very next source.)
  • I agree with the comment below that Fox Sports should always include "(Australia)" and likewise for ABC News. You could also do the opposite and never include "(Australia)", since they are always linked anyway.
  • Regarding the book sources, I would expect only the Lane book on the launch of the AFLW to potentially have more information that could be included, but probably not a whole lot given that it doesn't focus on Pearce specifically. I would expect the news sources and the official sources from the official VWFL/VFLW/AFLW websites to be more in-depth. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious as to how the book source disagrees with whether her siblings are brothers or sisters. Having no access to either source, I don't know which would be more reliable. The newspaper source is much more recent, so I don't see how they could have messed it up if the book was already published. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other book sources seem like mostly passing mentions. The Hayes and Sheedy sources are a bit more in depth, each with about two pages on Pearce, but these are picture books for kids. They might have a little more information, but I wouldn't favor them over most other types of sources already used.

I didn't finish either of these today. I'll probably finish both of them tomorrow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the comments on the prose. I didn't find much after a second read-through. I'll look through the sources again if others continue to comment them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, just finished here again. I've opted to remove "(Australia)" because they're linked, like you mentioned, and regarding the differing information in the sources, I really like Sam Lane – who I know is a big fan of Pearce – and wouldn't expect her to get this sort of information wrong, but from memory (the Weekend Australian article was freely available at the time when I used it), Courtney Walsh actually travelled around with Pearce to write her story, and it's more recent like you said, so I figured it would also be pretty reliable; to counter this, I've tweaked the wording slightly so that it doesn't contradict either source ("two brothers", "two younger half-siblings"). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Steelkamp

edit

Media career: (some of this may have already been mentioned due to an edit conflict)

  • and in 2019, she also hosted This Is Grit, a weekly podcast series on SEN focusing on female sportspeople. – Citation doesn't show that. Also, wouldn't "sportswomen" be more concise than "female sportspeople". Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearce was a rotating panel member on the Seven Network program AFL Game Day and is a boundary rider for Seven and 1116 SEN's AFL coverage – Citation makes no reference to 1116 SEN. Citation does not show why rotating panel member is in past tense. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice womens.afl is frequently referred to in references and other parts of the article, but [2] this shows that it should be womens.AFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This one has not been addressed yet. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly think you might have just picked out one of the only instances in which this happened, as I see it formatted far more frequently with the "afl" in lowercase – here are some recent examples (plenty more where these came from): [3][4][5][6][7] 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Only two issues remain (see below) for me to support. Steelkamp (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on womens.afl alongside Nat Edwards – There is no indication that this is a website. Maybe change to In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on the womens.AFL website alongside Nat Edwards Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Tiffany Cherry spoke out against the Nine Network in February 2018 for failing to stand up for gender equality after being replaced as host of the Nine program Women's Footy by Clint Stanaway, Pearce said that it was better to have both men and women involved in commentating and talking about the men's and women's competitions. "I enjoy seeing men working across and well-informed football commentators talking about [women's football]... why can't we see men working across the AFL Women’s competition?" She said that if there was a belief that only women should call AFLW games and only men should call AFL games, "It's almost as if we are taking a few steps back". – The problem with this paragraph is that it takes a while to get to the point. It's not until about 2/3rds of the way through that I realise that Pearce is criticising Tiffany Cherry's stance. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearce was among several high-profile AFLW players to speak out during the 2020–2022 collective bargaining agreement negotiations in 2019, with Pearce supporting the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) and its efforts to grow the competition,[152][153] saying that broader talks between the AFLPA and AFLW players would result in an agreement that would satisfy all players. – This doesn't really put things in their full context. The Age says that "reports emerged of a split over the new collective bargaining agreement." I think the quotes can be shortened and more context to this can be added. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching career:

  • I don't think that many citations are needed. Three or more adjacent citations is too much. For example, in the first group of citations, the Lions website could be removed without impacting the verifiability of the preceding sentence. Use WP:CITEBUNDLE if they absolutely must be there. Steelkamp (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • and is highly regarded across the football industry for her professionalism, football knowledge and leadership, both on and off the field, as well as being a role model for current and future female footballers and commentators.[24] – Citation is a wix.com website. Doesn't seem to be a high quality source. It is also a dead link, so some source archiving will need to be done. There are several other dead links throughout the article as well. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not convinced by a wix.com website. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted to citing the Weekend Australian article in the instance above (I remember it covering the inspiration element a fair bit, and that really should have been the source in the first place) and used a different quote from Melissa Hickey from a Fox Sports article (Hickey was clearly full of praise) in the quotes further down, so the Change Her Game article is now, for all intents and purposes, dead and buried. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herald Sun journalist Jay Clark wrote that Pearce had "set the standard in training and professionalism [in women's football] for years" and that her contributions over more than a decade made her a "living legend of the women's game", – What's to say that Jay Clark wrote that. It says up the top that Lauren Wood wrote that article. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue still remains. Also, the archive link for reference 157 is incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the archive link (I remember pasting it into the text originally, so not sure how I accidentally put a different one in there) and set |url-status=deviated to indicate that the current version usurped the older version that I'm trying to cite; both versions at least attribute the information that I'm sourcing to Clark, but this way you can see that Clark originally wrote the article before Wood came in over the top and "took a screamer", to use the old footy vernacular. Would this suffice? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format of this section is a bit awkward due to the images. I think it would be best to remove one image, and have the other one on the right rather than the left. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very minor, but I think that named Daisy in honour of Pearce sounds and flows better than named Daisy to honour Pearce. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA, which then decided to include AFLW players as full members of the association. – Citation says that it was existing members that voted to include AFLW players as full members. There is nothing there to say that the vote occurred after Pearce was elected. How about On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA. The association had also decided that day to include AFLW players as full members. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearce had won the inaugural award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. – How about you change this to Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life and philanthropy:

Honours and achievements:

General:

Steelkamp, I've mentioned the differing information regarding Pearce's birthplace in a footnote and tweaked the information about her brothers and half-siblings so that it doesn't contradict either source. I've also sourced 1995 and her half-brother, and otherwise addressed all most of your other feedback previously. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

edit
  • I have made a few edits to the article rather than list my suggestions here. The article suffers from citation overkill. For example, does Pearce's participation in the annual Big Freeze at the 'G need three citations? Similarly, "By March 2022, Pearce was considering an assistant coaching role for Geelong's AFL team;" has five citations. There are others like this. Can we use just one reliable source for uncontroversial statements? And on the subject of citations, some seem to be poor quality (there was even a Facebook one). Can we weed these out and replace them with better ones? I'm referring to the ones like worldfooty.com. As it stands, the citations are a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: These are often redundant but keep popping up in revisions of the article. I think the writer has an addiction to them. Here is a quote from Tony's essay :
"Additive terms—"also", "in addition", "moreover" and "furthermore". Every sentence is additional to its predecessors, but most of us, including otherwise good writers, have got into the habit of sprinkling these terms through our writing, because they give us a vague feeling of adding to the cohesion of the text (the strength with which it all hangs together). However, only occasionally are these additive words required for textual cohesion; the flow is usually stronger without them." -Graham Beards (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these have been addressed – let me know if you have any additional feedback. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. For a sports biography, this article is refreshingly accessible to someone who know nothing about the game. Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest scaling up the image in Personal life. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix

edit

Just a drive-by comment on sourcing, might convert to a full review. Bylined pieces from AFL Media (i.e. post-2012 AFL.com.au) and womens.afl have a decent track record of independent coverage and in my view should be regarded as independent RS. Club and AFLPA websites aren't independent but are reliable enough to be used sparingly. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
Quality
Formatting
  • I have replaced the work cards with publisher/newspaper/website as appropriate to generate MOS-compliant formatting
  • Also News.com.au was sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; I have standardised the article on lower case, matching the other web sites
Spot checks

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, thanks for the review – I think I've pretty much covered everything. Australian Football seems to be the database of choice for all AFLW players (AFL players use both AFL Tables and Australian Football, whereas AFL Tables doesn't cover AFLW), and the club websites don't include AFLW best and fairest votes (which I used the database to source a few times), so I'd argue that it is reliable and the article would benefit more from keeping it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Pass on sources, support article generally. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concerns from Kavyansh — resolved

edit
  • Of the five instances, Fox Sports (Australia) does not have 'Australia' in Ref#135 and Ref#143. Also, Ref#135 and Ref#143 are italicized while rest three are not. Suggesting to be consistent.
  • I am not confident if "Australian Football" (australianfootball.com) is a high quality source. this does not make it clear if any content matter experts are consulted. More importantly, this says "In order to view some Content, post any Content or access certain features of the Service, you must register as a member with AF" (emphasis mine), which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#5, Ref#54, and Ref#131)
  • I am not sure how this of from 'SportsTG'. (Ref#6)
  • Since we write 'Fox Sports (Australia)', shouldn't we also write 'ABC News (Australia)'. It can easily be confused with American ABC News. (References: Ref#7, Ref#37, Ref#44, and Ref#111)
  • Not convinced that 'The Footy Almanac' is a high quality source. This says "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go", which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#13, Ref#17)
  • Ref#21: The URL says "The Page you are looking for cannot be found". Should url-status be marked as 'dead'?
  • Why do we use 'Instagram' as a source. Are there no secondary sources? (Ref#78)
  • Our article italicizes 'Seven News'. Should we do that same in Ref#122?

That is on a quick run. This should be noted that these concerns are raised after a source review was been "passed" on March 14 (Special:Diff/1077022142/1077025521). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for your feedback. As I've gone into above with Sportsfan77777's comments, I've removed "(Australia)" from each Fox Sports and ABC News source, as they're all linked. I've fixed the VFLW source and removed the Instagram source, and I've stopped short of italicising Seven News, as I've treated it as being the same as ABC News, etc. All of the other sourcing concerns were addressed in Sportsfan77777's comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply. Thanks a lot for fixing most of it. I still have few standing concerns. Per your reply about "Australian Football", you talk about the usefulness of the source, which still does not make clear why it is reliable, or why it is not a WP:UGC. Same with "The Footy Almanac". Even if VWFL (assuming it to be Victorian Women's Football League) is a publisher, does it make it a WP:HQRS when the site explicitly claims "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go". Sorry for pressing you and/or being nitpicky. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh, sorry for taking even longer myself. Regarding Australian Football, I've cited different sources for the AFL Women's best and fairest votes, leaving just her date of birth and player statistics (both of which normally cite databases anyway, as you aren't going to find either in a news article) as citing the database; the only alternative would be to source the club website, but the individual player pages at club websites only exist when the player is active, so Australian Football would likely be the only source (if not the best available, at least) that's still live once Pearce retires (I also didn't see anyone object to the use of Australian Football when Erin Phillips was nominated... and her article is littered with citations to the database). As for The Footy Almanac, I've also replaced one of these articles (2011 VWFL GF) with a different source because I was able to find one, but I haven't been able to find another source/version for the other (2009 state team); is there anything wrong with treating it on a case-by-case basis? In this case, just one article; because we know that it was written by Leesa Catto and originally published by the VWFL, shouldn't that make that particular article reliable enough given we can't find another version? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not objected to using any source, merely questioning the reliability. I am now satisfied with the responses, and as far as I am concerned, most of these sourcing concerns should be considered resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments/discussion/feedback

edit

OK, guys – I think I've covered just about everything so far, aside from upscaling that last image and maybe a couple of other things (including getting a chance to check out those books/articles, if that was directed at me). Let me know if you guys had any more to add; I've just added this subsection in case anyone wanted to add a comment separately to their reviews, otherwise feel free to drop your thoughts via your own sections if that's easier – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing if anyone else has anything to add? Not sure of the best way to scale up the Personal life image, either. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in again – been three days now. Pinging those we haven't heard from in a little bit (Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Graham Beards, Nikkimaria and Teratix), along with Casliber, Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, Hmlarson and Figureskatingfan from related FACs if they have any comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: five supports/concerns resolved here, and haven't really had any opposes – is that enough/is there anything else that you guys think needs doing? Anyone else, please feel free to comment as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a first time FAC nominator, the article will need a source to text fidelity spot check. I have requested one at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

edit

I'll do the spot check; I know nothing about this sport so in some cases I may be asking from ignorance. Working from this version, for reference numbering purposes. I'll look at every 11th footnote.

  • 11: OK, but the source is from 2016 and says "remains" the only [etc.]. I know this is picky but I think you should say "as of 2016". If another series takes place in 2024, we want this article to still be correct.
    • Done.
  • 22: OK.
  • 33: OK.
  • 44: What's the source text for "a national free-to-air audience of over one million people"? Is it "telecast live into Melbourne and Adelaide on Channel 7; as well as Sydney, Brisbane and Perth on 7Mate — reaching a combined audience peak of 1.05m people"? I don't understand "free-to-air" -- does it mean broadcast over the air; i.e. non-cable? If so this is OK.
    • Correct.
  • 55: You're going to have to explain this one to me. I see her name in the ROUND SIX section under "Adelaide v Melbourne", listed as "3. D Pearce (Melbourne)". How does this support "was awarded the maximum three AFL Women's best and fairest votes by the umpires in the round 6 win against Adelaide"?
    • The AFLW best and fairest votes are awarded by the umpires (3, 2, 1 for each match), but this isn't in the source, so I reworded the sentence to "...awarded the maximum three votes for the AFL Women's best and fairest award in Melbourne's round 6 match against Adelaide".
  • 67: OK. I'm skipping 66 because it's almost identical to 55.
  • 77: used to source "on 31 August, Pearce announced her pregnancy with twins, which would result in her missing the 2019 season": in fact it doesn't strictly source the second half of the sentence, since that season was in the future at that point. You need another source for the fact that she actually missed that season.
    • Done.
  • 88: "She ran a personal best time in the club's two-kilometre time trial in the lead-up to the season". The source doesn't say the time was in a time trial or for the club.
    • Reworded to "She ran a personal best time over two kilometres...".
  • 99: OK.
  • 110: "after moving to the forward line and kicking two goals from 13 disposals". In the source I see she is credited with two goals, but I don't see anything that supports the rest of this, though since I have no idea what a disposal is I might be misinterpreting something.
    • I read the "13 disposals" part in another source, but was fine to just remove it instead.
  • 121: OK.
  • 132: "Pearce played in Melbourne's preliminary final win over Brisbane": I don't see evidence in the cited page that she played in this match.
    • In the source: "In a promising sign of things to come, Melbourne's win was built not just on the backs of experienced campaigners Daisy Pearce and Paxman..."
  • 143: OK.
  • 154: "As a result, Pearce was shifted to Seven's Friday night commentary team for the 2022 season". Yes, she was moved to that slot, but the source doesn't really support "as a result" (of her previous strong and praised performance); they could have planned to move her anyway.
    • Done.
  • 165: OK, but I would suggest changing the article text to extend the quote, since "over more than a decade" is directly from the source too. I.e. 'her contributions "over more than a decade [made] her a living legend of the women's game".
    • I think either would have been fine, and I might have even preferred it how it was, but changed it anyway.
  • 176: OK.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, just went through your feedback – sorry for the wait. Let me know if you have any more – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above issues are all OK now, but there were four or five (out of sixteen) that were just slightly inaccurately sourced. I'm going to look at ten more to be on the safe side, using the same numbering for the footnotes:

  • 113: I don't think this gives the exact nature of her injury, unless I'm missing something in the source.
    • The MCL part was in one of the sources that I removed when I cut down on the number of sources, so I've added that back.
  • 39: sourcing "a match against a Brisbane Lions women's team at the MCG in May" -- the source says "Queensland"; I know Brisbane is in Queensland, but the Brisbane Lions seem to be a different team from the way the source presents this.
    • I remember it initially being fixtured as "Queensland" but ending up just being the Brisbane Lions (including their guernsey), so I repositioned the current sources and used a different one to source the Brisbane team instead.
  • 125: OK.
  • 6: OK.
  • 162: OK.
  • 175: OK.
  • 136: OK.
  • 17: OK.
  • 21: OK.
  • 119: OK.

-- This is a bit better but the first two look like more of the same -- slight inaccuracies in the sourcing. Let me know whether I'm missing something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I've ticked off those couple of issues as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those fixes look good. To pass a spot check, I need to have confidence that this sort of slight inaccuracy has been cleaned up throughout the article. Can you take a pass through and see if you can spot any other similar issues? It's clear to me there's nothing inaccurate in the article -- we just need to be sure we're sourcing it precisely. Let me know when you want me to have another look, and I'll pick another ten footnotes to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie and Gog the Mild, just in the middle of doing it now – I've been moving house and picked up more hours at work, so have had a pretty hectic week, but will have all of the sources checked soon, as I'd love to get this done and see the work here pay off. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go for it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do -- probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third try. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • 93: OK.
  • 35: OK.
  • 169: This does support the award, but you might add extra citations to support the roles you list -- ambassador, talent coordinator, graduate intern.
    • Whoops – I had an earlier source that I meant to change it to, as it supports the text, but must have accidentally closed it before making the change; fixed now.
  • 173: OK.
  • 144: OK.
  • 60: OK.
  • 135: OK.
  • 9: Used to support "Pearce sought dispensation from the local league to continue playing alongside boys as a teenager". It does support that, but the next part of the sentence mentions that she was disallowed -- that's supported by [3] which is paywalled so I can't see it. It looks (from [9]) as though she was initially given dispensation? But per [3] it was later withdrawn? If so I'd make it "was later disallowed". This isn't a problem with the spotcheck, just a suggestion, but I can't see [3] so I may be wrong.
    • I don't know if you can be 100% certain that she was given dispensation from "At one stage she needed dispensation...", so I've changed "sought" to "needed" per the ABC source, but I am certain that the Australian source said that she was disallowed.
  • 24: OK.
  • 4: OK.

Just one minor tweak needed, to 169. That's not enough to prevent me passing this spotcheck once you fix that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome – done. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you haven't done it yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the Age source for this one – is there something I'm missing? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good; thanks heaps for the spot checks – where to from here? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing for you to do -- just wait till the coords comment or promote or another reviewer comes along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Daisy_Pearce/archive1&oldid=1250332079"