Talk:Alicia Sacramone

GA Review

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

The lead is too long per WP:LEAD but otherwise there are only minor changes needed, which I've done anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and for reviewing the article! I've made a few changes to the lead and tried to cut it down to two paragraphs. DanielEng (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Everything looks fine. My only concern is that while this page is stable now, I'm not sure it will be for the next week or two because of the Olympics. How do you feel about me keeping this on hold until after she competes in the Olympics? Peanut4 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. The page will have to be updated during the week for the Olympics, so it makes a lot of sense. I don't mind it being on hold at all until she's finished competing. Thank you! DanielEng (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There was quite the sea of vandalism the other night after Sacramone's poor performances in the team all-around. It's up to the initial reviewer, of course, but there's quite a bit of precedent to outright fail an article because of lack of stability. Nosleep (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence, why I'm waiting for the Olympics to finish. If I don't think it's still stable, I will fail it. But I'm giving a good article chance to stabilise. There is no upper limit for how long to hold an article. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed the "neutrality dispute" tag on the 2008 Olympics section, and obviously I already had concerns regarding the stability before. So unfortunately like the Nastia Liukin article, I'm unfortunately going to have to fail it per the stability criteria of GAN. Everything else was fine before, and the only thing I haven't read through is the new "2008 Olympics" sub-section. My suggestion would be to wait for the dispute to be resolved, and give it say a two-week breathing space for the article to become clearly stable again, and resubmit at GAN. Peanut4 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really not cool, and I'm confused as to why you're failing these instead of holding on until the end of the Olympics, as you said you would. Please re-read the criteria for stability: good faith page improvements and IP vandalism do not count. As with Nastia Liukin, this fail is not correct, and I am submitting it for reassessment. DanielEng (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some reason why the current developments keep getting reverted?

They're pretty huge developments, and will be properly sourced in time. If that's your concern, you're really wikilawyering and taking WP:RS way too seriously; this is live on worldwide TV and she is blowing it. Nosleep (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see there's a sea of other vandalism. Never mind then; once this article stabilizes something about her poor performances from tonight can be written and sourced. Nosleep (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Olympics

Basically is the only reason why the US lost in the Beijing Olympics. Even shawn johnson couldn't help her out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitemare120 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Sacramone's errors amounted to one and seven-tenths points (eight-tenths for each fall and one-tenth for stepping out of bounds on the floor). China's margin of victory was over two points. So it's factually incorrect to lay all the blame at Sacramone's fault. Nosleep (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. USA generally also had lower A-scores across the board than China (on UB, for instance, USA had 7.70, 6.80 and 6.10--China had two 7.70s and a 7.10) and was working with a depleted team so even with hit routines they probably would have ended up with silver unless China really screwed up. Saying this is Sacramone's fault is just not okay. At any rate, after event finals/after more news sources come out about tonight, the article will be updated with factual material.DanielEng (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the statement above about her errors NOT being the only reason they lost the gold. Second of all, they got a silver. Is that such a bad thing? At least they won a medal! It's not like they placed 4th or lower. A silver medal was a wonderful accomplishment for them. Wow, some people need to change their perspective on measurement of success.--Slayergenxxx (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe in Alicia Sacramone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.165.39 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the people who have written the 2008 Olympics part of this page for Sacramone. Although she did make some big errors that cost the USA team a lot, she was not the only one who made errors, and several authoritative people have pointed out that, going into the competition, the Chinese had a big advantage, anyway, with their superior scores for difficulty. It's very important to present this information in a fair and balanced manner, and you guys have done a good job with that. It's important to be fair and balanced, especially when we're talking about the spirit of a hard-working young lady. Her teammates seemed to not have such a problem with silver, so neither should Martha Karolyi. Besides, they went into this knowing they weren't the favourites, anyway.Miloluvr (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Boston is not in Middlesex County

At the bottom of her page, she has a tag that says Persons from Middlesex County, but there is nothing in the article that says she is currently living in Middlesex County. Boston is a part of Suffolk County.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Video punch-out

I think it might be appropriate to mention something about the video that leaked of her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QA6s7p-zU8), since it's gained some notoriety around the Boston area. But, I don't want to just write it up for fear it might be seen as vandalism. So, I'm curious if everyone thinks it's relevant or not? Gabefarkas (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the video has been out for two years or so (it's from her first year @ Brown, IIRC). I don't think it's really notable, it's just her having fun at school, and there haven't been any actual articles, etc. about it (aside from something on TMZ, right?). I say nay, but let's see what others thing.DanielEng (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't think the video is relevant to the article. First, it was made some time ago. Second, it really doesn't involve anything worth note as it relates to her career (which the article is mainly about).--71.13.239.254 (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)