Template:Did you know nominations/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics
The following is an archived discussion of Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics[edit]
( )
- ... that Amanda Carter (pictured), the oldest member of the Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics played for the team before Amber Merritt, its youngest, was born?
- Reviewed: Hair-grooming syncope
Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self nom at 20:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Newness: Just barely squeaks by. Length: Definitely. Policy: Are you a fan of this team? It reads a bit enthusiastic for them. This should be toned down for neutrality reasons. Hook: Barely squeaks by. QPQ: Good. Image: Good. User:Abyssal (User talk:Abyssal) 05:04, 13 February 2013
- It was nominated on the day it was moved to the mainspace. Wikimedia sent me to London to report on the Paralympics for Wikinews. As such, I filed reports on each game, took photographs, and interviewed many of the players, both Gliders and other teams. The article is currently awaiting its GA review, and then will go to Featured. I thought the article was critical of their performance; is there something specific that should be changed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an example: "It was clear that the game was going to be tough and physical, with the Gliders once again attempting to choke the life out of what would otherwise be a high-scoring side with the same disciplined defence that had defeated the United States. For a while, it looked like it was working; with three minutes to go in the quarter, Australia was up 10-4. It should have been by more; there were a number of missed shots and opportunities. But in the last minutes, Germany put on a devastating run of ten unanswered points that gave them a 10-14 lead at quarter time." This passage colorfully describes their opposition like in a root-for-the-underdog sports movie, describes their efforts in exaggerated fashion (they were trying to "choke the life out of them"), bemoans the points they "should" have gotten and their "missed opportunities" and so forth. It definitely sounds like a sympathetic account. Also there are passages that seem to speculate on the motivations and strategies of the players that aren't commented on in the play-by-play game transcript used as their source. Maybe another editor would like to look at the article, but it still seems to have neutrality and OR issues to me. Abyssal (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tweaked the wording a bit to tone down the "colour". We know the Gliders' strategy from source 41: "our game plan was to have strong defensive pressure and take it from there..." The article makes it clear that the Gliders were by no means the underdogs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good work neutralizing the tone, but I still have the OR concerns I mentioned in the last post. Does WP:Sports consider it proper to speculate on strategies based on play-by-plays or should we trim that kind of thing from the article, too? Abyssal (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no speculation; it is sourced from the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the article is up for GA, so if you'd like to do a full review, that would be great.
- Ha ha no, sorry, I'm just here for QPQ reasons. Could you show me like a small dumb child where in your sources the claim that against Mexico, the Gliders started wasting time passing the ball around after a score by Merrit? 'Cause I looked at all four sources and couldn't find any details on that strategy, but given that there are four sources for that paragraph it's difficult to find any given bit of info. Abyssal (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworked the Mexico section, and everything should be fine now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to verify the hook fact's claim about the ages in any of the cited sources. It's obviously true based on the numbers involved, but I'm pretty sure we need an explicit source for this. Also, what's the source of the hook fact? It needs to be placed immediately after the use of the hook fact in the article for a DYK and not buried in a series of cited sources. Abyssal (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- They are there. Copied them immediately after the hook. "The UK event will [Carter's] fourth Paralympics after competing in Barcelona (1992), Atlanta (1996) and Sydney (2000)" [1] (it also gives Carter's age as 48), and Merritt's birth date, which is 17 February 1993 (so she was 19 until she turned 20 on Sunday). [2] Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to verify the hook fact's claim about the ages in any of the cited sources. It's obviously true based on the numbers involved, but I'm pretty sure we need an explicit source for this. Also, what's the source of the hook fact? It needs to be placed immediately after the use of the hook fact in the article for a DYK and not buried in a series of cited sources. Abyssal (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworked the Mexico section, and everything should be fine now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ha ha no, sorry, I'm just here for QPQ reasons. Could you show me like a small dumb child where in your sources the claim that against Mexico, the Gliders started wasting time passing the ball around after a score by Merrit? 'Cause I looked at all four sources and couldn't find any details on that strategy, but given that there are four sources for that paragraph it's difficult to find any given bit of info. Abyssal (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the article is up for GA, so if you'd like to do a full review, that would be great.
- There is no speculation; it is sourced from the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good work neutralizing the tone, but I still have the OR concerns I mentioned in the last post. Does WP:Sports consider it proper to speculate on strategies based on play-by-plays or should we trim that kind of thing from the article, too? Abyssal (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tweaked the wording a bit to tone down the "colour". We know the Gliders' strategy from source 41: "our game plan was to have strong defensive pressure and take it from there..." The article makes it clear that the Gliders were by no means the underdogs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an example: "It was clear that the game was going to be tough and physical, with the Gliders once again attempting to choke the life out of what would otherwise be a high-scoring side with the same disciplined defence that had defeated the United States. For a while, it looked like it was working; with three minutes to go in the quarter, Australia was up 10-4. It should have been by more; there were a number of missed shots and opportunities. But in the last minutes, Germany put on a devastating run of ten unanswered points that gave them a 10-14 lead at quarter time." This passage colorfully describes their opposition like in a root-for-the-underdog sports movie, describes their efforts in exaggerated fashion (they were trying to "choke the life out of them"), bemoans the points they "should" have gotten and their "missed opportunities" and so forth. It definitely sounds like a sympathetic account. Also there are passages that seem to speculate on the motivations and strategies of the players that aren't commented on in the play-by-play game transcript used as their source. Maybe another editor would like to look at the article, but it still seems to have neutrality and OR issues to me. Abyssal (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was nominated on the day it was moved to the mainspace. Wikimedia sent me to London to report on the Paralympics for Wikinews. As such, I filed reports on each game, took photographs, and interviewed many of the players, both Gliders and other teams. The article is currently awaiting its GA review, and then will go to Featured. I thought the article was critical of their performance; is there something specific that should be changed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Newness: Just barely squeaks by. Length: Definitely. Policy: Are you a fan of this team? It reads a bit enthusiastic for them. This should be toned down for neutrality reasons. Hook: Barely squeaks by. QPQ: Good. Image: Good. User:Abyssal (User talk:Abyssal) 05:04, 13 February 2013
