Wikipedia:Peer review/Yip Pin Xiu/archive2

Yip Pin Xiu

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean swimmer with muscular dystrophy, who won two medals and set two world records at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out any and all issues that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. I am particularly concerned about prose and BLP issues. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! This is a very nice article and would definitely pass GA. My only comments are that for the external links only her bio on the Team Singapore is needed, not the link to its homepage, and that, only if possible, all the references to news articles be external linked to the article. This article is complete and well-reference, and I hope you continue to do the same to other Singapore-related articles! Reywas92 ^Talk 03:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major broadsheets in Singapore have a archive limit for up to 7 days by paid subscription and then completely removed. In this case, the articles are obtained using professional news retrieval services by query, which is session-based (making it impossible to link to). - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons outlined by Mailer diablo, links to references are not always available. The removal of the unnecessary external link has been done. I will certainly continue to counter systemic bias by improving Singapore-related articles and getting them to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several female athlete FAs that may be useful models includimg Susianna Kentikian and Nellie Kim
Noted I will read those FAs for some pointers. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have an image in the upper right corner per the MOS
Not done I could try uploading one, but it would quickly get deleted by the anti-fair use brigade. Thankfully the GA criteria do not require images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the team image with her in it to the lead, but as you note it is not a GA requirement. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think that image looks awful and the article would be better without an image, but Jacklee wants it to stay in the article, so... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not required to have an infobox, but the model articles all do.
Not done because the article is so short, but if she stays at the top for a few more years, an infobox probably will be added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers ten and under are generally spelled out (though not times) so spell "first" (not "1st"), etc.
Done I believe the "1st" was part of the event name, but have decided to replace it with "2005". By the way, 11 and 12 (her ages when she lost her ability to walk and started competitive swimming respectively) are greater than ten, but would spelling them out be a good idea? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you do, I would be consistent - I think if you spell out eleven and twelve throughout it would be fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Spelled (or should that be spelt?) out the numbers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance for her actual birthday and not just the year?
Not done There was a discussion about this, with a consensus that we should exclude her birthday due to BLP concerns, especially considering that she is a minor and not a public figure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, presumably when she turns 18 her birthday would be included in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I could ask Jacklee (who is a lawyer) at what age Singaporeans are no longer considered minors (if I remember correctly, it is 21). If she stays at the top for several more years and other reliable sources publish her birthday, we can then consider including it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some places do not give the year(s) at all and probably should, like For three consecutive years, she won the Sportsgirl of the Year Award by the Singapore Disability Sports Council.[2] and After successes in national championships, Yip participated in the 1st Asia Paralympics Swimming Championship, netting two gold medals.[2] Other places give the year information twice, only once is needed, such as The following year, she won three gold medals at the Japan Paralympic Swimming Championships 2007 and four gold medals at the World Wheelchair and Amputee Games 2007.[2] Why not just In 2007 she won three gold medals at the Japan Paralympic Swimming Championships and four gold medals at the World Wheelchair and Amputee Games.[2]?
Done Great suggestions! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has a lot of red links - not required that they go away for GA, but it looks nicer ;-)
Noted with suggestion I will keep the red links to Patricia Valle (she won a Paralympic gold medal) and the regional/international championships, which are probably notable (but without articles due to systemic bias). Do you think I should remove the red links to the national sports councils and Project 0812, which may not be notable? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think even a stub helps - I am not an expert on this, but if you are not sure they are notable, then I would not have red link on the topic. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Some redlinks removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would provide context and briefly explain the S catcgories in S5 to the S3 category
Noted with suggestion How about changing "S3 category for the physically disabled" in the lead to "S3 category (disability class)"? Alternatively, I could change "S3 category for the physically disabled" in the lead, and the instance of "S3 category" you mentioned, to "S3 disability class". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear - I would explain here that S3 is more disabled than S5. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added brief explanation in brackets. Though not completely accurate (S11-S13 are for visually impaired athletes), I think it will suffice. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; it was very helpful! Do tell me what you think of my suggestions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll keep writing GAs. When my next GA-to-be goes on PR in about three weeks, I will know who to ping. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's my two cents.

This sparked public debate about the treatment and recognition of disabled athletes in Singapore. in the lead section should probably be tweaked, as the wording (not the act itself) may not seem neutral.

Noted I am thinking how I can make that sentence more neutral. Of course, explaining the potential neutrality problem or offering suggestions would really help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Changed "sparked" to "contributed to" as her achievements were not the only factor; Laurentia Tan won two bronze medals and also played a part. I consulted other editors who found no other neutrality issues in this sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on the S# classes on the severity of the disability? An internal link to that classification scale would be helpful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such article exists, I'm afraid. The second paragraph of the lead section does link to a section in the Paralympic Games article that explains the disability classes.

Infobox - I think it might be better to have the picture be in some kind of modified infobox like the one on Michael Phelps.

May consider That image looks terrible. If I were Yip and I saw that photo in that infobox, I would complain to Wikipedia (if she knew how to complain, that is). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the words netted and bagged seems awkward in this article

Done So much for trying to find synonyms! I hope readers won't find the article too bland. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would most likely prefer separating the swimmer's actual swimming career from the public debate section (although separating would bring about a very awkward subsection) since the government's reaction and public debates do not actually involve Yip. I consider this "reactions" to her success, not "she sparked public debate".

May consider If she stays at the top for several more years, the article may expand to the point where separating that paragraph would be viable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look well sourced. I would like this article translated into Chinese soon. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I need to brush up my proficiency in both languages. And thanks for the review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

Is it possible to expand the lead? One fairly large-sized paragraph should suffice.
Noted Thinking about what other information would belong in the lead. Suggestions are always welcome. I honestly thought four sentences was enough. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I expanded the lead from four to six sentences. One of the new sentences mentions her early successes in other competitions. The other mentions that she was conferred a state medal - another major claim to notability that should shoo the deletionists away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yip was born with muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder that slowly breaks down her muscles, and a nerve condition that affects her eyesight. - Change "her" to "the".
Done Changed "her muscles" to "the muscles". Should I also change "her eyesight" to "the eyesight"? The sources do not name or elaborate on the nerve condition. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you remove some of the redlinks? The most relevant ones should be kept, but several of them in a relatively small section are rather unsightly.
May consider You probably mean the second paragraph of the Swimming career section. These appear to be international competitions and would presumably be notable. I wish I knew more about the competitions, so I could start articles about them! If you insist, I can remove all the redlinks for now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in the finals, she bagged the gold medal with a time of 2 minutes 08.09 seconds, bettering her own world record. - "Bettering" → "extending".
Done though I would appreciate an explanation on why "extending" is a better (pun not intended) word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S$1,000,000 for an Olympic gold and S$100,000 for a Paralympic gold. - Needs USD conversions if possible.
May consider Exchange rates change all the time. Such conversions may quickly become outdated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We generally give the exchange rate at the time event took place. However, I see no reason why a USD conversion is needed; 1) not all our readers are American, 2) it's not an American subject, 3) I really don't want to be doing extra work on behalf of those who are incapable of working out the exchange themselves, should it interest them. Giggy (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add a see also section
May consider What links could go there? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good otherwise. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chenzw (talk · contribs)

It would be good if there is a table listing the achievements.
Not done because I know hardly anything about table formatting, a table is not needed for GA status and such a short article probably would not benefit from such a table. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This sparked public debate about the treatment and recognition of disabled athletes in Singapore." Would it be possible to have a reference for that?
Not done That sentence is in the lead section, which is usually unreferenced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good article otherwise. Cheers, Chenzw Talk 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although your review was not very helpful, thanks for the effort! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hersfold (talk · contribs)

The lead could use some more references; much is cited later on in the article, but it's probably best to cite up top as well.
May consider Need to check the policy on citations in the lead section. I remember they are discouraged, but I could be wrong. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Include a little more detail about why debate was started in the lead section; the last sentence appears somewhat awkward without anything to transition into it or support it.
Noted I will think about how this can be done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed "This" to "Her achievements" to make the sentence flow better. We have discussed this on IRC and Hersfold feels nothing else needs to be done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a genetic disorder that slowly breaks down her muscles, and a nerve condition that affects her eyesight" - You should probably remove the possessive pronouns, as both would affect the same in other patients as well. I mentioned this to you in IRC, but a name for the nerve disorder would be helpful as well if you can find a source for it.
Clarification needed I changed "her muscles" to "the muscles" as suggested above by Juliancolton, but what about "her eyesight"? Should it be changed to "the eyesight" or simply "eyesight"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just "eyesight." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the clarification! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"(categories with lower numbers are for more severely disabled athletes)" - would this perhaps read better as "(lower numbers indicate more severe disabilities)"? It's a little less wordy and has a less familiar tone to it, I think.
Done Excellent suggestion! Your wording is much more concise. Though I am not sure why we want a "less familiar tone". NPOV does not mean making articles a bore to read, does it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Words like "took home," "netting," and "bagged" definitely need to go... consider replacing with "earned," "received," "was awarded," "merited," "obtained," etc. It's ok to repeat words, but not consecutively and no more than once.
Done See my comments to Juliancolton regarding this issue. Unlike him, you suggested alternative words - --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who awarded her the Pingat Jasa Gemilang?
Done Clarified that the Pingat Jasa Gemilang is a state medal. As a state medal, it is obviously awarded by the state; in this case, Singapore. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Like, who actually handed it to her or said "she can have this?" Was it an act of Parliament/Congress/whatever, a decree of the President/Prime Minister/whoever, or does a committee decide? Sorry about that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done According to the source, state medals are conferred by the President. Added a mention of that in the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to crop & enlarge the team image to show only her? I agree that it's not a great image, but it's better than nothing, IMO.
Not done If only she was facing the camera! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article! Well done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your review was very helpful. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]