# Talk:Isabelle Westbury

This review is transcluded from Talk:Izzy Westbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Move to England section, is a period missing in this sentence ---> "Appearing for Junior Emeralds, she improved as the tournament progressed, following up scores of 18 and 27 with the tournament's highest score, 89, in the final match[24][25][26]"? I have a question, the article is named "Izzy Westbury" but nowhere in the article is "Izzy" mentioned, just on top of the article.
Check [on the missing period]. Before passing the article, I would like to get an answer to my question. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added "commonly known as Izzy Westbury" at the top of the article, other than that there is little I can add.  The sources I have aren't unanimous in their use of Izzy, but it is definitely her more commonly used name.Harrias talk 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to know, cause it was something I was very curious about. Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
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): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Are free images available of Westbury?
At the moment no, but I hope to get some later this summer. Harrias talk 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Added some in now! Harrias talk 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Awesome.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the above can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Harrias for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:82.171.97.163, thanks for the additions to the article.  I'm guessing that you are friends with Izzy Westbury on Facebook, and that there is something there about her broken arm.  However to those that aren't friends with her there is nothing, and statements made (even by the person) on Facebook, Twitter etc don't really meet the reliable source criteria on Wikipedia.  I'd love to be able to include this information, but without a source it can't really be added to a biography of a living person. Harrias talk 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Did she really live on Planet Nine?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.6.114 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 


### Izzy Westbury
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept Problem sorted AIRcorn (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Another of my early Good articles. This one has had some back and forth over the past year; it spent over a year in a similar state to present (with a lot of the GA content removed) before I noticed and restored it. However, my original work isn't that great, and is out of date. The more up-to-date state it is currently in lacks comprehensiveness for GA status, but I'm not really interested in making the two marry up any more. Maybe a happy medium can be found, but not by me. Harrias talk 10:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: That was strange. It is easy enough to add updated information with out removing  the outdated stuff. It is not like the past disappears. In the end there were only one or two short sentences to add to the good article version to bring it in line with current one. Are you happy with this staying a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no problem with me. Harrias talk 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Eelhovercraft, can you explain why you feel it necessary to remove so much information? Harrias talk 18:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Given you are using the fact that CricketArchive is no longer free, please check WP:PAYWALL, which says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access Spike 'em (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the existing cricketing section of the article could do with some paring down, with some details on the end of her career and then a section added for her media career, which seems to be more significant than her playing career. I can find lots of her articles (many mentioned on her own website), but would be good to have independent ones discussing her wrting / commentary. The link in the first sentence does not support the claims that she is a lawyer  broadcaster, and only very tenuously shows that she is a sports writer. Spike 'em (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Harrias, yes. It is a long article about a not very high profile person using obscure citations which can not be verified by any public search and about a very narrow period of this person's life. It should be more succinct with better, verifiable sources. It is also poorly written with sentences which are too long, repetition and subjective inferences. Eelhovercraft 10:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Whilst we're at it, should the article be moved to Isabelle rather than Izzy? It seems all her newspaper articles use Isabelle, as does her twitter page (though her handle is still @izzywestbury). Spike 'em (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Spike 'em, yes. Eelhovercraft 10:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)