Jump to content

Talk:Christine Sinclair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChristine Sinclair has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2017Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2018.


Gold Boot?

[edit]

An anonymous editor added uncited information that says Christine won a "Gold Boot" for being the top goalscorer in London 2012, but as far as I know Golden Boots aren't awarded (per se) at the Olympics. I'm tempted to remove the two edits, but thought I would check here before doing so. PKT(alk) 11:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, she was simply Top Scorer for the event - there was no hardware/trophy created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.254.171 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Sinclair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christine Sinclair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christine Sinclair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Sinclair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Christine Sinclair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Made some minor copyedit changes
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Two citations required; tags added to flag where
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    One request (see comments below)
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Style of play section is skating on the border here, but I will pass it
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images have appropriate licences
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    One template warning (see comments below)


Comments
  1. Warning: Page using Template:Infobox football biography with unknown parameter "University". Resolve.
  2. Born in Burnaby, British Columbia to Bill and Sandra Sinclair Add date of birth, with an appropriate reference. I know it is in the lead, but the lead and article should stand separate.
  3. Similarly, her Order of Canada needs to be in the Honours section as well
  4. And second worldwide in all-time international goals scored also needs to be somewhere in the article
  5. Reformat FN 9, 12, 13 to match the rest of the article
  6. FN 32 is dead
  7. FN3 is dead (yes, I know)

All in all, very good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Walter Görlitz

Once again, this shows that reviewers have no clue and GA doesn't mean the article is good or bad.

My verdict is that the article is good, and I am willing to pass it with a few changes. If you mean I am not an expert on soccer in Canada, then you are correct. My personal knowledge is about the Olympics. I saw the Canadian team in London in 2012 and Rio in 2016. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you intentionally remove a correct link to instead point to a redirect?
Per WP:NOTBROKEN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you violate WP:REPEATLINK and link soccer twice in the top section of the article?
It is only linked once; the lead doesn't count. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is some WP:REPEATLINK in the article, but I have not flagged them, as compliance with that section of the MOS is not required by GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you add citation required rather than a dated {{citation needed}}?
I thought the two were the same; the expectation is that they will soon be resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you remove spacing?
I didn't deliberately do that - it may have been the editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hawkeye7: for reviewing the article. I made changes to #1 and 2 in your list - will continue later. Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I have addressed the items you've listed above + re-ran the link check. Let me know if anything else needs updating. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 season

[edit]

It's rather early to add stats from the 2019 Portland Thorns season, isn't it? (2/24 matches at present)......PKT(alk) 14:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most players have their stats updated per-match, however, I don't think the season has started. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely regarded as..."

[edit]

Hello. I've tried to revise the following sentence: "Widely regarded as Canada's greatest soccer player of all time" and it's been reverted.

The citation for this sentence is one columnist from nine years ago. As per Wikipedia, a column, "typically, but not universally, contains the author's opinion or point of view." If you read the column, the writer is taking an opinionated point of view. This is not an objective source.

Furthermore, I also don't find any other references to her being "Canada's greatest soccer player of all time." I do however find a couple sources that don't even list her as being one of the greatest Canadian soccer players of all time: https://www.90min.com/posts/6402486-canada-day-10-of-the-best-canadian-footballers-of-all-time

https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-soccer-players-from-canada/reference (this one is a fan poll, and much more representative of what is considered "widely regarded" by soccer fans than one columnist's opinion from nine years ago.)

I think it would be better to avoid giving anyone the problematic title "greatest of all time". How do you compare a goalie to a striker? Someone who plays Premier League versus someone who plays women's international tournaments? It opens the door for subjectivity.

I propose changing the sentence to say "Canada's greatest female soccer player of all time," which would be much more specific and harder to dispute, or "Regarded by some as ..." because there is not enough evidence to say "widely regarded" is warranted, and more evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlandguy (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. She is not only Canada's greatest female soccer player of all time, she is Canada's greatest soccer player to date. "All time" implies looking into the future and knowing that no greater soccer player would ever exist. Fan polls are unreliable and remarkably biased and the 90min.com entry is by Daniel Freeland who states I am 18 years old, I'm a huge sports fan with my football team being Chelsea F.C." and so far from a reliable source I can't even imagine how that site isn't blacklisted.
In short, you have no clue about how to find a reliable source nor how Wikipedia sources things.
Try searching: https://www.google.com/search?q="Canada's+greatest+soccer+player"
After the big image of Alphonso Davies (who is likely the greatest male player presently) we see
https://ccrweb.ca/en/refugee-phenom-inspiring-alphonso-davies-could-be-canadas-greatest-soccer-player-ever about Davies
https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/big-read-the-evolution-of-christine-sinclair/ about Sinclair
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/worldcup/christine-sinclair-goals-record-world-cup-1.5160397 about Sinclair
A reddit link to the same Davies info linked from the refugee entry above about Davies
Another entry pointing to the Davies article
A CBC tweet about the Sinclair article
https://vancouversun.com/sports/shapovalov-barrett-ruck-canada-teens-spotlight-sports/wcm/a7fe3309-0fe7-4056-b5d2-ae06d947c1dc/ with an embedded link to the Davies article
Next ten links: two for Davies and eight for Sinclair
Without the quotes, we see your content and https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/article-christine-sinclair-honoured-as-canadas-best-soccer-player-of-the/ about Sinclair officially awarded the for the decade of 2010–2019.
In short, there's a bias against women players (take a look at https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-soccer-players-from-canada/reference and click on women for instance) and you'll see that if a journalist includes a woman for consideration, they're ridiculed.
No one is suggesting that in a head-to-head test of abilities that Sinclair would outperform Davies or even a less well-known male player, only that compared to peers, Sinclair stands out above all other players. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"No one is suggesting that in a head-to-head test of abilities that Sinclair would outperform Davies or even a less well-known male player, only that compared to peers, Sinclair stands out above all other players."
Then she ISN'T the greatest Canadian soccer player of all time, is she? Thanks for proving my point. If a 12 year old is the greatest 12 year old in her league, we wouldn't say she is the GREATEST Canadian soccer player of all time because she is the Pele of pee-wee soccer. To say she is "widely regarded" is dubious, and that sentence makes this page look like a Sinclair fanboy article. But since you are such an expert on citing sources, perhaps you'd like to cite your sources in the article, to at least give the sentence a shred of credibility, something you should have done a long time ago to avoid this waste of time arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlandguy (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Newfoundlandguy, you're wrong. Sinclair is the greatest of either gender. She might be surpassed by Davies in 20 years or so, but certainly not yet - he hasn't achieved a scratch of what Sinclair has achieved. PKT(alk) 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, she's not the greatest Canadian soccer player of all time, as we do not know what the future holds for us.
She certainly has achieved more than any Canadian soccer player to date, and that's what the RS claims as well.
It is not the job of Wikipedia to interpret the sources, only to accurately reflect them and do so without making claims with undue weight. WP:STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third opinion Howdy hello Newfoundlandguy, Walter Görlitz, saw this on the Third Opinion board and thought I'd drop my opinion, worth what it is. When I first read this, without looking at the edit, I had assumed that the issue was over if she was the best, or among the best. But I see that its a gender issue, if I have interpreted this edit as the one in question. Looking at the sources, they don't seem to differentiate between gender much, and the sentence already notes that she's among the worlds leading female soccer players. I thinking qualifying her gender doesn't line up with the sources. Now, if you're looking for a compromise wording, perhaps Widely regarded as one of Canada's greatest soccer players of all time could work, since "greatest" is always going to be a bit subjective, and Wikipedia tries to avoid using strong superlatives when possible. I could also see removing "of all time" as a bit redundant, since if shes the greatest Canadian soccer player, it is implied that she is the greatest of all of its history, but I don't think that it is super necessary to change one way or the other. Hope that helps a bit, please ping me in responses. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Portland 2022

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 13:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_Sinclair&oldid=1252195332"