 | Harry Hewitt was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 9, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Hewitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 20:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Thejoebloggsblog. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be the one reviewing this nomination. I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Prose
editThe prose is generally not written well. A lot of the paragraphs start with "in [date]" or "on [date]", making the whole article feel very samey. I have a similar critique for a lot of sentences that just feel like lists in written form. E.g. the Stathalbyn section. This also applies to the personal life section, which is also exacerbated by the excessive line breaks. There are also some weasel words to watch out for here, e.g. Hewitt is considered to be the first Indigenous Australian to play in the SANFL
- Who considered him this?
Focus
editThe article is pretty comprehensive about his life, but it also goes off on tangents about things that aren't related to him at all, like the early life section, which contains wholly irrelevant information about David Unaipon without further context. Who is this person? Why are they relevant? A quote from him about the ancient origins of ball games is absolutely not relevant here. Other noted footballers from his area is not relevant to this article.
Other GA criteria
editAll the sources in the article, being published by newspapers, are reliable, so good job there. The article is overall written fairly neutrally as well. The media presented are all in the public domain and are relevant. No edit-warring or content disputes going on, so also stable. All in all, these GA criteria are met, but the prose and focus are not.
Conclusion
editThis article has a long way to go before reaching GA status, mostly due to its prose and lack of focus. A lot of it needs to be rewritten to make the language flow better, and a lot of irrelevant information needs to be removed. If you need assistance with this, I can suggest taking a look into this. I'm afraid I'll have to quick-fail this article (See WP:GAFAIL). If you feel like the aforementioned issues have been rectified, you can renominate this article in the future. I wish you the best of luck on the work to follow. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)