Talk:2022 AFL Women's season 7/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Normally the lead is a summary of the article, and therefore requires no reference, but the lead here contains information that is not in the article, and therefore requires reference. (I would move it into Background and supply a new lead.)
Done – rather than drastically change the lead, I resupplied the relevant information in the background section and trimmed the lead section down, adding sources where appropriate. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Source required for "Win/loss table"
- Was there a season logo for the infobox?
- As far as I've been able to find, the only logo that was used for the season is the AFLW/NAB logo (like for the grand final) – wasn't sure if that would work, but I could be wrong. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Anything about the tV broadcasts?
- You mentioned the CBA. Any idea what the players are paid or what the salary caps are?
- Done – player payments, yes, but not salary caps. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- "this season's iteration also celebrated allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport" but the AFL's performance lagged a bit; they didn't let T players play. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't (yet) been able to find any sources to back that last claim up. When the AFL blocked Hannah Mouncey from playing AFLW in 2018, they didn't rule her or other transgender athletes from playing AFLW in the future, and I haven't read anything sbout that changing; as a result, is it relevant? The point is about the season's Pride Round celebrating allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport (which could mean allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport or allies [...] within the sport, though it wasn't super clear). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I just thought it was a bit too upbeat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't (yet) been able to find any sources to back that last claim up. When the AFL blocked Hannah Mouncey from playing AFLW in 2018, they didn't rule her or other transgender athletes from playing AFLW in the future, and I haven't read anything sbout that changing; as a result, is it relevant? The point is about the season's Pride Round celebrating allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport (which could mean allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport or allies [...] within the sport, though it wasn't super clear). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
No other issues.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- No spelling or grammatical errors found
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- See comments above
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- See comments above
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- One image, appropriately licensed. More images would be nice.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- On hold pending resolution of issues.
- Finished addressing your initial feedback, Hawkeye7 – let me know if you have more feedback/comments; thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 January 2023 (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.