Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Fanny Blankers-Koen/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Fanny Blankers-Koen
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 16:35, 25 February 2007.

Fanny Blankers-Koen

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Jeronimo, Bio, and Sports Olympics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been featured since september 2004, and is long overdue for a FAR. More specificly, here are my concerns:

  • definitely needs in-line citations
  • several of the wikilinks could be considered to be ridiculous (now, not in 2004); e.g. 800 m
    • Not for nothing, but m is certainly not a ridiculous thing to link. Don't forget that most Americans are unaccustomed to using the metric system and don't know right off the bat what that "m" stands for. I went through the article and found only a few things to de-link, all of them dates. Andrew Levine 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the text refers to never explained events (e.g. she moved back to her previous hometown Hoofddorp, but it had never been stated she had actually lived in Hoofddorp before)
  • There are no real POV issues, but a more neutral rewriting ("her last moment of glory") could do no harm.

Errabee 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Needs citations definitely (1. c.). More specifically, the article has a lot of adjectives in its statements which add a certain slant on events. Such terms as "highly dubious", "possibly", "relatively objective" I wouldn't say observe NPOV, so I would say there are POV issues in the article. If anyone decides to work on this article, please feel free to message me and I will point out more specific statements in the article that need addressing. LuciferMorgan 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just had a quick look through and found a few articles to reference from, and added some citations accordingly. It needs many more, of course, and the prose definitely needs quite a bit of work, but I'm sure someone who actually knows something about athletics — I know nothing about the subject — could really turn this into a top article. As a subject she certainly seems to deserve it. Angmering 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and missing info (1b). Marskell 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some work done, some work to come hopefully. Marskell 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some statements that need attention:
  • the first relatively objective biography of Blankers-Koen was published (not sure what the "relatively" refers to or according to whom, perhaps could be re-worded)
  • Dutch and international media always portrayed her as the perfect mother ...
  • The exact results of the test remain unclear, and although Dillema looked a bit like a man, most do not doubt she is a woman. Most of the other women on the team at the time suspect it was an attempt by Jan and Fanny Blankers to eliminate a possible opponent, although this has never been confirmed.
  • she would later claim she thought there had been a false start
  • his attitude towards female athletes changed after he fell in love with Koen
  • Dutch media automatically assumed her career would be over.
POV statements still need work though, and possible citation. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the non-online references (two books in Dutch and a journal article) but I am sure they will help if someone can locate them. I think it would be useful if you could add {{fact}} and {{fixpov}} statements to the parts you think are problematic. (I still can't see the POV, but perhaps my antennae are not sufficiently finely tuned.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concerns are listed above; I hesitate to add fact tags, but will do so in a few days if no one can find sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have other 1. c. concerns as well as Sandy's; give me a ping on my talk page if you're interested. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am not in a position to do anything about them, but it would be helpful, I think, to tag the article so someone else can see them and deal with them, if they have the sources (whether the FARC goes through or not). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Fanny still has a few weeks here, so I'll tag those, and go poke dig around Wiki in search of some Dutch editors; there must be a category or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I put out multiple queries several weeks ago, someone should have been able to finish the article; nothing happening. Article has important uncited information, and isn't particularly compelling or brilliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Fanny_Blankers-Koen/archive1&oldid=1138476925"