# Talk:Kelly Hecking

COI articles on BLPs that are in the process of being written should absolutely not be in mainspace! @TonyTheTiger JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I STRONGLY recommend you draftify this, both because there is zero reason for a BLP (on someone you are acquainted with) that is a work in progress to be in mainspace, and to avoid going through an AfD when this inevitably needs to be deleted on notability grounds. JoelleJay (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch
Reviewer: Graearms (talk · contribs) 19:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


### Immediate Failures
Y1. "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria"

To be determined
2. "It contains copyright violations"
The one image in the article is in the public domain as it is ineligible for copyright. Also, I checked some of the sources and I do not believe there to be any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article. I used several online plagarism website. Such as Free check-plagiarism.com, quetext.com, smallseotools.com, and plagiarismdetector.net. All of these sites showed no similarities between this article and any other sites.
3. "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include cleanup, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of citation needed, clarify, or similar tags. (See also QF)"
This article has no cleanup banners.
4. "It is not stable due to edit warring on the page"
The article has not a major revision in a long time. And there has been no edit warring in recent times, if ever.
5. "A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered"
This article has not had a previous GA review


### Criteria
Y1  Well-written

"The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently."
Each sentence and paragraph in this article is clear and comprehensible.
"The spelling and grammar follow an established system, even if you prefer a different variety of English."
As far as I can tell, everything in this article is grammatically correct. There were a few spelling errors. I ran it through Google docs and Grammarly, and there appears to be very little if any grammar mistakes. The words
"remained" and "respectively" were spelt wrong, however I fixed those mistakes.

 "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation."
MOS:HEAD
"Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place."
Each section heading is unique
"Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked."
No section heading has links
"Not contain images or icons."
The headings do not contain images
"Not contain <math> markup."
It does not contain that markup
"Not contain citations or footnotes."
The section headings do not have citations
"Not misuse description list markup (";") to create pseudo-headings."
The section headings do not misuse that markup
"Not contain template transclusions."
The section headings do not contain template transclusions
"Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, e.g., Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life."
The section headings do not
"Not refer to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer."
The section headings do not refer to higher level headings
"Not be numbered or lettered as an outline."
The section headings are not numbered or lettered as an outline.
"Not be phrased as a question, e.g., Languages, not What languages are spoken in Mexico?."
The section headings are not phrased as a question.
"Not use color or unusual fonts that might cause accessibility problems."
The section headings do not use color or unusual fonts.
"Not wrap headings in markup, which may break their display and cause other accessibility issues."
The section headings do not use markup
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section
Wikipedia:Short description
Content
"focus on the purposes stated above"
The short description in the article simply reads "American swimmer." This short descriptions describes the most basic facts about her and this fact about her is what the article is focused on.
"use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial or judgmental."
There is no one contesting that Kelly, is in fact a swimmer, and there is nothing that can change the fact she is a swimmer. This fact is also not judgmental, although there may be someone out there that will judge her off this fact, the article itself is neutral.
"avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject."
It is easy for any English speaker, or anyone who is only familiar with basic English to understand this description.
"avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)"
There is not a single word the title and the short description share.
 "start with the most important information (mobile applications may truncate long descriptions)."
The article mostly describes her career as a swimmer.
"be short – no more than about 40 characters (but this can be slightly exceeded if necessary)"
The short description is less than 40 characters.
"be written in plain text – without HTML tags or wiki markup."
This article has no wiki markup.
"start with a capital letter"
The short description starts with a capital letter.
 "avoid initial articles (A, An, The) except when required for correct grammar and meaning."
There is no initial article.
"avoid a final full stop."
This short description had no period.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Puffery
This article does not use any opinionated words such as "legendary" or "iconic."
Contentious labels
This article does not use any contentious labels.
Unsupported attributions
No claims in this article are unsourced, and it uses no weasel words.
Expressions of doubt
The article does not express doubt on any of its facts.
Editorializing
The article does not editorialize its claims.
Synonyms for said
The article does not use ant improper synonyms for "said."
Euphemisms
The article does not use any euphemisms.
Clichés and idioms
The article does not use any clichés and idioms.
Relative time references
The article does not use relative time references.
Unspecified places or events
The article specifies its places and events.
Survived by
The article does not use the term "Survived by."
Person or office?
The article refers to the person, not the office.
Neologisms and new compounds
The article does not use any neologisms and new compounds.
Easily confused terms
The article does not use any easily confused terms.
Y2  Factually accurate and verifiable

"it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;"
This article has 31 inline citations, all of which are used frequently throughout the article. With almost every claim being sourced. No information in the article is likely to be challenged beyond the march of time leading to new, better athletes that can top some of her records. This article also has no original research.
Y3  Broad in its coverage

WP:OOS
"All material that is notable, referenced, and that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope must be covered (at least in a summarised fashion)."
This article covers the athletic career and accomplishments of this swimmer. Which is likely what any reader is trying to see.
"What reliable sources say about material that is out of scope for the decided-upon subject is largely irrelevant to that article and can be removed or moved to another article."
All material in the article is relevant to the previously stated scope.
Y4. Neutral

MOS:NPOV
1. "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
I read through the article and there were no opinions that were stated as facts.
2. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
There were no points mentioned in the article that are debated topics.
3. "Avoid stating facts as opinions."
I read through the article, there were no facts stated as opinions
4. "Prefer nonjudgmental language."
There was no language that sided with or against any figure.
5. "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."
There are no opposing views, and therefore there is no need to indicate them.
Overall, this article is entirely factual, with no opinions. This article is not about a controversial topic, and there is no opinions or debatable material in the article.
Y5. Stable

The article has not any significant changes in a long time. It has also has no edit wars or disputes, and may have not have had any ever.
Y6. Illustrated

This article has no images, however, there is no need to have any images. As per "What the Good article criteria are not," "If images have not been included, and if suitable images are not readily available (checking Commons for images is a good idea), then this criterion is automatically satisfied." Since the article has no real suitable images then there is no need to actually include any.
@Graearms:
I do not see an upper right GA icon at Kelly Hecking.
The review itself does not show a passing statement or timestamp when it passed.
The article is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation.
Is this edit a normal part of the process?
For some reason legobot thinks the article failed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, I never got pinged with a review outcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger:
1. I just added it. The "good article" template was not in the page.
2. I published it the same time I started it. I wrote the whole thing in one sitting, then published it.
3. I just listed it there, thank you for notifying me of this.
4. No, that was just me fixing up a mistake I made
5. I can't explain that, I don't know why legobot did this.
6. I just made a new message.
Graearms (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Graearms, why did you list her at Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation in the billiards section?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: I simply made a mistake. I did not know that the articles in the "Others" section were also divided by sport. I am deeply sorry for all of the mistakes I have made during this GA, and I would like to thank you for your efforts in helping me fix them. Graearms (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thx for working to get it right and for the efficient review. I have made a few minor edits since the review. While I have the attention of a second editor on this article, can you look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes. Comment if you have an opinion. I am leaning toward not making any changes, but was considering adding a medals feature in her infobox for her 9 YMCA nationals medals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you TonyTheTiger for contributing to this good article and for all your other contributions to Wikipedia. Also, I will check out the debate you linked to. Graearms (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to include high school-level sports accomplishments in an infobox. More broadly, high school national records should NOT be given more than a sentence or two in a biography unless they were widely reported in more than local news. It is not encyclopedic to relay high school rivalries or regional records; even collegiate national records should be discussed sparingly unless they were held for some time. The YMCA achievements in particular are UNDUE, since they appear cited only to primary, non-independent sources. If the only places discussing these events are the organizations or schools themselves, they should have at most a sentence mentioning them. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)