Talk:Louise Fulton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one on for review, thanks for submitting it for the Women in Green edit-a-thon! I'll give my comments, followed by checking it against the GA criteria. I know next to nothing about the American sport of ten-pin bowling, so I'm intrigued to read about Fulton! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• This image should probably be moved further down and aligned to the right, per MOS:IMAGELOC, as it currently compresses the text between it and the infobox.
  • Done.
• In explanatory footnote [a], it would be good if you could move each citation inline with each claim, rather than having them all bundled together at the end.
  • Done.
• Is Marjorie Mitchell notable enough to eventually have her own article? If so, it might be worth redlinking her.
  • While Kuczynski appears notable, I'm not so sure about Mitchell; I didn't find that much coverage on her.
• It might be worth putting the detail about her sister in another footnote. Just because at this point in the biography, Fulton hasn't started bowling yet.
  • Where do you think it'd be best to include that detail?
    • Tagging an explanatory footnote next to the sentence about her brothers and sisters, I think would be good. Basically where the sentence is right now, but in footnote form. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
      • I added it as a footnote - does that work? 18:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure there's a need to cite [1] for every sentence here, as you're not pulling any direct quotes. Putting one at the end of the paragraph should be good enough.
  • Removed a couple unneeded ones.
• Be sure to use Template:Circa where you're citing approximate years.
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [1][5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: "Fulton then began "breaking records and knocking down racial barriers as well as bowling pins"" Direct quotes should have inline citations immediately afterwards, in order to show where it's coming from. So in this case, it would be [8].
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: "In 1961, Fulton became the first African American ever to enter the All-Star Doubles tournament, which was held that year in Latham, New York.[4]" Verified.
• Terminology question: What are sets in this case? To a layman, the terminology is a bit unclear here.
  • A series, or set, is a group of three bowling games - I linked to its entry in Glossary of bowling.
• "which were the highest numbers all-time by a woman of color." They were at the time, or are they still?
  • They were at the time - I'm not sure if they still are, which is why I worded it that way.
• Spotcheck:"described by Ted Page as "the most dangerous woman bowler."[4][8]" Verified in [8], can't find in [4]. Am I missing it, or is the inline citation misplaced?
  • 4 verifies that she was one of the top ranked woman bowlers, 8 verifies the quote.
• Is Betty Kuczynski notable enough to eventually have her own article? If so, might be worth redlinking her.
  • Looks notable as a USBC Hall of Fame member - redlinked.
• Access dates should be provided for citations, especially when citing from websites such as the United States Bowling Congress where the date of publication is unclear.
• "the first African American elected to the United States Bowling Congress Hall of Fame in 2001. Is "elected" the right word here? Wouldn't it be "inducted"?
  • Changed.
• Spotcheck: "Fulton died on May 7, 1988, of cancer.[2]" Verified.
• I think the lead could be a sentence or two longer. Right now it's very short.
  • Added a little bit; do you think there's anything else worth mentioning.
    • Looks much better! Think it could do with a bit of tightening up, as it repeats "first African American" quite a few times in quick succession, but other than that it's all good. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
      • @Grnrchst: Would saying "first of her race" work in replacement for one of the mentions of "first African American"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

        Aye that might work. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Why is only the "1964 Princeton Open" listed in the wins section of her infobox? Didn't she also win other tournaments?
  • She did win other tournaments - I'm not sure why I only put the one there, but anyway looking at the documentation for Template:Infobox professional bowler it says championships: Also known as simply "wins", this is the total number of tournament wins credited to the bowler. Report only the total wins published by the JPBA. I don't know what that means so I'll just leave it blank for now unless we can figure out what should / should not be included.
    • Hrm, if you're not sure then perhaps it's better to leave it blank. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Do we know much about her personal life outside of bowling? The article is currently very focused on her sporting career.
  • There isn't much that I found, but I added a little bit.
    • That's great. Even that little detail helped flesh out her biography a lot. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some specialist terminology isn't immediately clear on the first read, but it's otherwise all good.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   References are all well formatted. Access dates could be provided, but that's a minor issue.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   One case of a direct quotation not having an inline citation, another where one of the inline citations doesn't appear to include the quote.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No apparent original research to be found.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig mostly flagged organisation names and common terms without much possibility for rearranging.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Covers her life and career from birth to death. Lead could do with being a bit longer and if we know any information about her personal life, that should ideally be in there too.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused. Only one case of a detail that could be better utilised in a footnote.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues with NPOV.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edits since its GA nomination. Last real reversion was removing information cited to a generally unreliable source. (See WP:ANCESTRY)

6. 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:

   Images are properly tagged as in the public domain; published in the United States without a copyright notice before 1977.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are relevant, one a portrait of the subject and another an action shot showing the subject playing her sport. Both are captioned, but alt text should really be provided for them.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is very close to a strike! (Did I get that right? :P) Really it's only the issue of inline citations for direct quotations that's currently holding this back, with the rest of my comments mostly being minor issues. @BeanieFan11: Ping me once you've addressed these points and I'll take another look. Excellent work on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: I think I responded to all your points. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review - I'll try to get to it within the next three days - just note that I have an enormous amount of work I've been doing recently so that's why there's been the delay. Thanks! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm happy to pass this now. I've left some extra comments in response to yours, but there's nothing I think holding it back from GA. Nice work! --Grnrchst (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)