Talk:Barbara Howard (athlete)

thanks

thank you tweet Victuallers (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barbara Howard (athlete)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Copyvio check: No major concerns as the largest matches are due to properly cited quotation and the rest are mostly common phrases. The two matches that gave me pause were "the first member of a visible minority hired by the Vancouver School Board" and "She is believed to be the first Black woman to represent Canada" which both appear in sources, but I think WP:LIMITED can be said to apply for these.

I agree with WP:LIMITED in this case. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Stability: no evidence of edit wars or instability.

• Lead:: I don't think that the inline citations are needed in the lead, as the information is cited in the body of the article. However, they can be kept per MOS:LEADCITE if their inclusion is from "the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material".

MOS:LEADCITE sounds reasonable -- I tend to think that when a person's claim to notability involves them being "the first" in anything, it's worth including citations. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sources: Only nine sources are used, but given their quality and the length of the article, this seems acceptable.

• Lead: "gained attention" is a bit of a vague phrase. Here and in the body, add that it was "national press" attention or "national press coverage". (That's my reading of the source, anyway.)

Changed to "national media attention". Okay? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: Not sure about "her performance fell short in the 100-yard dash", it seems a bit of a harsh way of expressing it, but I don't have a concrete alternative suggestion.

I agree -- all the sources say that Howard felt disappointed by her result, and that may have slipped through into my writing. I've changed it to "Although she didn't place in the 100-yard dash...". Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: I couldn't immediately find any suitable wikilinks for 440-yard and 660-yard relay. Have you considered any useful pages to link to? Maybe just Relay race?

Linked to relay race. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: Wikilink normal school. I'm not familiar with the phrase but it doesn't look from the Wikipedia article like it should be capitalised.

Hmm -- I'm not sure we can rely on the Wikipedia article capitalization (it switches back and forth several times, so maybe the writers weren't sure either). The Canadian Encyclopedia entry for Howard does capitalize it. I think when the term refers to a proper noun (a school actually called the Normal School, which many normal schools were), then it makes sense to keep it capitalized. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Early life: Wikilink Stationary engineer.

Linked! Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sprinting: "...charmed by her sense of humour..": Is this based just on the report of the exchange with Dunningham? Seems a bit too strong a statement if that is the case.

Fair comment -- I think I was extrapolating here, but I wanted to communicate that the media attention/fans didn't appear to be solely based on her skin colour. I've changed it to "taken by her personality". Is that any better? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's justified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sprinting: I think it might be better for tone to omit "from her admirers", even though "admirers" appears in a source.

Done -- probably unnecessary words, anyway. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sprinting: "a treasured stuffed koala bear." I think "treasured" is just about justified based on the source, but reword to something like "a stuffed koala bear that she treasured" to show it was Howard rather than the gift-giver that treasured it. Was it a toy, or a genuine stuffed koala? I assume it was a toy but perhaps not.

Good points -- I've reworded to "a koala bear toy". Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sprinting: "her window of opportunity as a sprinter passed" and, in the lead, "did not have the opportunity to compete again". The source cited has "By the time international sporting contests resumed, Ms. Howard was beyond her prime" which I think has a slightly different meaning - not that she could not compete but that she was past her peak (or peak years). Is there a suitable rewording, or an additional source?

Something about the phrase "Ms. Howard was beyond her prime" strikes me as vague, and I'm reluctant to assume it was physical capability that was the issue. The CBC article says that "The window of opportunity for an amateur athlete at that time — especially a female — was very narrow. And the war just took that away from her, unfortunately." I'm inclined to think that female athletes in the 1940s were expected to move on from sports more quickly than men -- and Howard had settled into a brand new teaching career. It could have been social expectations that helped cut her career/training short. Could we keep it as "her window of opportunity as a sprinter had passed" or something similar, so that we're leaving it open to different possibilities? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful response. Yes, I think the amended text is appropriate here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Teaching career: "Howard's dedication and inventive curriculum made a lasting impression on many of her students" - whilst this is likely true, it seems to be like it goes slightly into MOS:PEACOCK territory, particularly as the source is from speeches at her memorial, albeit from actual students. How about amending this part to something along the lines "At a memorial service in 2017, former students said ..."

I've reworded to "According to the later recollections of Howard's former students...", just to avoid too much explicit time travel. Is that okay? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Coverage: Having read the sources used and conducted an internet search the articles, coverage in the article seems suitably broad and deep.

• Images: Appear to be legitimately public domain. Suitable captions and placement.

Hi Alanna the Brave, thanks for all your work on the article. I've made some comments above, and will have another look once you've responded. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for your review. I think I've covered most of your points -- could you take another look and let me know what you think? Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on board my comments, Alanna the Brave. I'm happy to pass the article for GA as I believe it meets the criteria. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)