Talk:Anna Shcherbakova

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Anna Shcherbakova giving signature at 2019 Russian Figure Skating Championships.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Anna Shcherbakova 2020 Russian Championships.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Anna Stanislavovna Shcherbakova (2004) && Anna Michailovna Shcherbakova (2006)

Caution, not mix. Anna Michailovna Shcherbakova - is a russian junior in dance on ice. Gold medallist in 2022/23 primaryship.PavelSI (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna Shcherbakova/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be taking this on for review as part of Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon. Apologies it took so long for a review of this article to materialise. Per my usual review style, I'll provide section-by-section comments and then check the article as a whole against the GA criteria.

Comments

Early life

• "a physicist and a geologist-crystallographer" If her father was the physicist and her mother the geologist, the word "respectively" should be used.
• Citation [8] doesn't credit the author (Veronika Sovemova) or clearly tag the language as Russian. These details should be included.

  Y

• Spotcheck: [8] I couldn't find any information about her date of birth, her parents or her parents' professions in here. Are you sure you're citing the correct source?

  This citation has details about her parent's professions. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• "statesman and politician" Saying both is redundant, either "statesman" or "politician" would be fine by itself.

  Y

• Spotcheck: [10] Inna is mentioned, but not Yana.

  Y added a source that mentions Yana.

• "to keep them active with" Should be a comma between "active" and "with".

  Y

• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.

Early career

• I'm concerned by some of the sources here. Although they do verify what is being stated, YouTube videos and internet forums aren't the best-quality sources. Alternative sources really ought to be provided, if they exist.

• Agreed. I've removed a lot of the material that did not have better sources. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Pink Panther and Addams Family should be linked to.
• "Her first known competition award dates back to December 2011 [...]" This sentence is quite long and should be broken up a bit.

  Y

• At one point her parents recall that she "began to slip in development" What does this mean? I understand that this is a translation from Russian, so it may be clearer in the original text, but it's not clear what "slip in development" means here.

• Not sure either, so I removed the information and just simply stated that she switched groups. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "It was then that it began to dawn on Anna and her family that there were aspects of figure skating that hadn't previously occurred to them, such as its potential as a career, and they began to see that the goal of skating was not Anna's entertainment but rather that skating was a serious enterprise requiring discipline and commitment. It was work, albeit interesting and promising work" This whole section is a bit editorialised. Consider rewriting and condensing it down a bit.
• Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
• "She is referring to the championship she won in March 2016" Is this confirmed by the sources or original interpretation? All the citations here are primary sources, like YouTube videos of the championship itself, and I'm not sure which of them confirm that she was discussing this championship in the interview.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• I'm really questioning the use of Reddit as a source... Given this quote is already verified by the other source, there is absolutely no need to cite Reddit.

• Reddit sources have been removed.

2017–2018 season

• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.

2018–2019 season: International debut

• Any source for this being her international debut? I know this was the first time she'd competed outside of Russia, but would be good to have an inline citation saying that.

  Y Added

• Spotcheck: [41] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [42] Verified.
• "quad Lutz" Could do with some links, for clarity as to what this is.

• Y

• Spotcheck: [47] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [48] Verified.

2019–2020 season: Senior international debut

• Spotcheck: [59] Verified.
• "second lady" Think "second woman" would be fine. "Lady" is quite formal.

  Y

• Spotcheck: [64] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [66] Verified.

2020–2021 season: World champion

• Spotcheck: [76] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [82] Verified.
• "ladies' podium" Again, I think "women's" rather than "ladies'" would be better.

  Y

2021–2022 season: Olympic champion

• Spotcheck: [94] Verified.
• "restrictions prompted by the Omicron variant." Maybe "restrictions prompted by the spread of the Omicron variant."

  Y

• Spotcheck: [97] I'm not seeing anything here about her placing fourth.

• Y Added -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [98] "so Shcherbakova became the silver medalist" I'm not seeing this mentioned explicitly. Do we have confirmation on this?

• Y Yes, and this information has been added. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [106][107] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [109] "therefore, Shcherbakova was not allowed to participate and defend her title" Not explicitly stated.

• Y added source that mentions her specifically -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 season: Injury

• No notes.

2023–2024 season: Illness

• "August 30" The rest of the article uses DMY dates, so this should be "30 August".

• Y

Skating technique

• "ladies' figure skating" Per above, I think "women's figure skating" would be better.
• Spotcheck: [123] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [124] Verified.

Endorsements

• Consider a wee rewrite. It's currently quite repetitive with a long list of "In [X], she promoted [Y]."
• Y

Magazines

• Is this the Russian edition of the same Hello! magazine?
• Section header could probably be "Magazine covers", as that's what this is about.

  Y

Film and television

• No notes.

Records and achievements

• "ladies' record"; "first lady" Per above, I think "women's record" and "first woman" would be fine.
• Y

Awards

• No notes.

Programs

• Any reason this is sorted from most recent (at the top) to least recent (at the bottom)?

  Most to least recent is typical for figure skating articles, but I'm fine with flipping it. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• This section isn't fully cited, as there's quite a few entries without an inline citation.

• The citations under the year (archived ISU bios) have short and free programs listed. I'm going to start looking for citations for the exhibition programs and her older programs that aren't YouTube videos. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Competitive highlights

• No notes.

Detailed results

• No notes.

Lead and infobox

• I think the first paragraph of the lead could do with a rewrite. Currently it reads like just a list of her achievements, without any actual description of her life and career outside of that. If listing all her successes is necessary, that could be moved to the end of the lead. The lead should really be a broader overview on her than just listing all the things she accomplished.

• How do you feel about the rewrite done by Swood100? -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Swood100; @Riley1012: Looks much better! Think it could do with an extra sentence or two about her early life and career, just to be a bit more complete. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Done! And I've updated the citations in the Programs section. Riley1012 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

   Some cases of iffy translations, unclear prose and minor grammatical issues, noted above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Seems to comply properly with the Manual of Style.

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:

   References should be checked to make sure they're complete, as I noted some cases of uncredited authors, no language tags or publication dates.

   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):

   A couple minor cases of bits lacking inline citations. Main issue here is questionable reliability of sources in the early career section. Bad sources and lack of citations have been dealt with.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Some cases of novel source interpretation and information failing verification that need to be dealt with. Issues appear to be solved.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags properly-attributed direct quotes.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Main issue here is with the lead section, which I don't think adequately covers the subject's life and career.Lead could be a bit longer, but it's much better now.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused, with only some minor (but relevant) asides.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   One noted case of non-neutral wording in the early career section.

5. Is it stable?

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

   Quite a lot of changes since GA nomination, largely from Swood100.[2] The nominator is encouraged to look over these changes and check their work.

6. 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:

   Images are all original works freely licensed under Creative Commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are properly captioned, although the addition of alt text is encouraged for accessibility.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is largely well-written but there are quite a number of issues with it that are currently holding it back from passing a GA review. I don't think any of these issues are beyond fixing though, so I am happy to hold the review until the nominator feels as though they have addressed them. @Riley1012: Ping me when you think you've addressed everything and I'll give this another look over. Good work so far, I think we can still get it over the line. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   Okay @Grnrchst:, I think I have looked through everything, but I am still working on citations for the programs. Could you provide feedback on the new lead? -Riley1012 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

   Thank you for attending to everything so thoroughly! I think the article is in much better shape now and I'm more than happy to pass this review. Excellent work on all of this, to you and your co-editors. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.