Talk:Boyd Exell/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Grorp (talk · contribs) 23:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 11:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grorp, I will begin reviewing this article shortly. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Australian English needs to be consistant throughout the article.
Okay, if you see any non-AusEng then let me know. I have no idea how to tell.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
Change specializes → specialises.
Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

US is styilized with periods, U.S..

When he was 21, he travelled to the United States and eventually settled in England needs to be reworded.
Why? See MOS:US. Do you want me to change "England" to "UK" or "U.K.", too?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
Consistency is important. If the source says England, than it's probably better to have England consistant in an article. Abbreviations typically require periods. But this might not apply here.
No, abbreviations DO NOT TYPICALLY require periods, especially for "US" and "UK". See MOS:US!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Suggestion Prehaps clean up the first sentence, wlnk Bega, and add what he's notable for (see MOS:FIRST).
Wikilink to Bega done. Lede sentence restructured.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

Linking YouTube isn't required in the external links section.
Maybe not, but I selected this short professional production as it contains an interview, his voice, explains some of the history of the sport, and shows some of the sport (in 3-D, not just words).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

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):
Interviews need to be accurate or verifiable. If you could find any other secondary sources, please use them. I will not be able to pass criteria 2 because interviews are self-published. (This is an example) Content should be written like this:
N Joe Film moved to New York in 2015.^[1]
Y In a 2015 interview with Remi Radio, Joe Film said that he moved to New York.^[1]
Which interview or article content do you have an issue with? I can't read your mind.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
Content cited from interviews should be written like this. And most of them (if possible) will need to be replaced with reliable sources. I cannot pass criteria 2 at the moment.
You're the one who is evaluating it and finding something that is a "stop". If you cannot tell me which interview or what content, then I cannot fix it. I cannot read your mind, and I'm not going to go through this entire article trying to guess what you have an issue with. Tell me where you have a "stop" on this, or move on.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

What is equestrianlife.com.au. and Horsetalk.co.nz., and what makes them a reliable source?
Equestrian Life is a news magazine covering equestrian events in Australia. Has a whole stable of subject matter expert contributors and journalists. [1] Zoominfo says EL's annual revenue is $5.7 million, hardly a self-published source. I have no experience with or knowledge of Horsetalk.co.nz.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

🚨 boydexell.com is not a reliable source.
Removed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

🚨 Blogs cannot be used in biographies. Noelle Floyd cannot be used.
Removed. FYI, Noelle Floyd started out as a blog, but has become quite the magazine, written by subject matter expert. Not your typical 'blog' as we've come to think of them. [2] [3] [4].   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

C. It contains no original research:
Why does the lede mention UK but the body mentions England? Content needs to be consistent.
England and UK have different meanings; like California and United States do.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig spots nothing of concern. I also spotted no CV of concern during my time analyzing the references.
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):
Naming his children is needless and should be removed.

Article remains on topic.
Done. ▶ I am Grorp ◀
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No issues of neutrality. Pass.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit wars. Pass.
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:
I am unable to verify the licenses in the article. I need some external help to verify if they are allowed on Wikipedia or not.
Image 1: From Flickr. Link provided in Wikicommons: [5]. Scroll to bottom of Flicker, click "License history". You see " Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 2.0)".

Image 2: Uploaded by photographer.

Image 3: From Flickr, see in Wikicommons: "was reviewed on 17 September 2024 by the administrator or reviewer Abzeronow, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date."

Video 1: Was uploaded by the videographer.

For images 1 & 3, I found them on Flickr, contacted the photographer and asked if I could use them in Wikipedia. He said yes and changed the licensing on both photographs to a cc-share license. This is the usual method of getting permissions for wikicommons.
Free images shouldn't be watermarked. I can't pass the criteria at the moment.
What watermark? I don't see any watermarks. ▶ I am Grorp ◀
It's unclear what the author's point is. They license it with a CC-share license but they have a copyright logo centered on the image. This is not how it should be, and I'm worried about the (C) logo. I have asked another editor for some advice if it is acceptable or not.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are relevant.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: I am upset that I have to make the descison to fail this nomination. The biggest issues in the article is the use of unreliable sources and images with uncertain copyright statuses (see WP:WATERMARK). It is unclear why the photographer adds copyright logos to their images but licenses it CC-by-2.0. I hope this nomination will not discourage you from the next nomination, which will hopefully cite reliable secondary sources from reputable newspapers/publications. Local newspapers, blogs, interviews, are prone to inaccuracy and errors so it's best to avoid them. I hope on your next nomination will have reliable sources, verifiable image licenses, a clear prose, and is consistent. This will have a substantially better chance of passing GAN. Today, I have to make the unfortunate descison to fail this article. But I hope you will continue working thru the article and improving the encyclopedia.

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.