The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Created by Hmlarson (talk). Self nominated at 05:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
This article passes the DYK criteria of newness and length and the hook is properly cited. However the image is not eligible because it is not included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I have added the photo to the Camille Levin article. Hmlarson (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the section "Stanford university" might be closed paraphrased from it's source.  While the hook isn't very interesting, it is not supported by an inline citation, as the citation that backs up the claim  doesn't mention her name. Additionally, articles that are featured at DYK should meet the general notability guideline - I can't find any significant coverage in any of the sources in the article, except this which isn't independent of the subject. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I've added another reference to support the hook which demonstrates she was a starting defender in the game and played the entire match. If you don't think the hook is very interesting, do you have a suggestion to improve it? Also, with numerous studies and articles noting the low amount of coverage of women's sports compared to men 1, 2, 3, 4 and the fact that the article now has 16 cited references, I don't agree with your point about the article not meeting WP:GNG.Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
But you don't have any citations that support that she "helped" the club to win the throphy? If not you should change the hook to something that is supported by sources, like "played the whole match". Whether there is a sexual bias on Wikipedia, where there is a lower bar to meet the general notability guideline dependent on your gender, is not something I'm going to discuss here, but it's not the number of citations that is important - it is whether the citations cover the subject in detail. The most important though is that the close paraphrasing issue remains, and this needs to be sorted. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone else care to share their review? Hmlarson (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The article subject is notable per WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE -- there's plenty of coverage in a variety of reliable sources, she was the fourth-overall draft pick in a draft by a top professional league in the U.S., and she plays at the top professional level in Sweden.
However, the sources cited in the article to support the hook fact don't support it. Those sources indicate that she was a member of the team and the team won the Supercupen, but they don't indicate that she played in the key games, much less describe her role in winning that championship. The Soccer Way source does list the games she played in during 2013, and it indicates that she played in the final game, but that source is not cited for the 2013 season. The source needs to be repeated in support of the information about the 2013 season. Instead of saying in the article that she "helped the team win", consider indicating how she contributed to the win (e.g., did she play in the winning game? did she score? was she credited with key plays?).
I also have a concern with the dearth of publication dates for the news stories included in the reference citations. The canned version of the "cite web" template automatically inserts an access date, but when you are citing a news item about a sports event, the date of the news item is much more important to the reader than the date that you accessed the item. I added a date for one of the news references; please go back and fill in the others.
I did not thoroughly check the sources to look for close paraphrasing, but I didn't notice any issues in the sources I checked. --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I have gone through and added dates and authors to the references where possible. There were a few that did not list authors. I've also copy-edited the sentence in the article referring to the Svenska Supercupen to state that she helped by playing every minute of the match. Based on both reviewers' input, I'd like to propose an alternate hook below. Hmlarson (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Everything checks out OK now. I prefer the original hook, but "your mileage may vary." --Orlady (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you should have approved this nomination, Orlady, even though everything else checks out, you say "I did not thoroughly check the sources to look for close paraphrasing", and I have already raised concerns that there is close paraphrasing, something that is also confirmed by the dup detector. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for tackling this late at night, when I was tired. I did look for close paraphrasing in my second review (that's why I said "everything checks out"), but I didn't look at all 26 cited sources, and I forgot that your comments had a link to the source you were concerned about. I've fixed some close paraphrasing that I thought was particularly egregious, and I think some of the matching strings (like "second team freshman all america") are unavoidable, but sentences like "Levin was named the Santa Clara/adidas Classic Tournament MVP and to Soccer America's team of the week for her one-goal one-assist performance against Yale and Cal Poly on September 21" still need to be replaced with the contributor's own wording. I hope User:Hmlarson can address this and other problematic passages. --Orlady (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your contributions Orlady. I have modified the questionable "Levin was named the Santa Clara/adidas Classic Tournament MVP and to Soccer America's team..." sentence. Although COPYVIO notes a 21.6% chance of a violation, it's in reference to a completely different article that is not even relevant to Camille Levin. It also states "No violations detected in Camile Levin." Check out the detail. Hmlarson (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There are still some issues. The WP:Close paraphrasing problem isn't the kind of blatant issue that COPYVIO picks up, but rather has to do with more subtle things like sentence structures, phrasing, and word choices that are closely patterned after a source -- too close to have been chosen by coincidence. Several of the other strings that duplication detector picked up represent very similar phrasing. For example, look at these strings: "...soccer america all freshman team selection and received second team freshman all america and west region all freshman team honors by soccer buzz she served her first career assist on Christen Press' game-winning goal against UNC-Greensboro..." and "...attended torbat v torah community day school in irvine california and was an nscaa all america selection in 2006 and 2007 levin was a member of the cal south olympic development program..." and consider whether the structure in the article isn't a bit too close to the structure of the source. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have made some additional copy edits that address the phrases you indicated and a few others. Many of the things coming up on the Duplicate Detector are common terminology and names of teams, awards, etc. - even the name of a magazine used as a reference (Our Game Magazine) and the title of the Wikipedia article (Camille Levin). While I'm willing to make any necessary changes, I also hope that this DYK nomination doesn't become unnecessarily stalled out like my other one. Hmlarson (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So because the things that is mentioned in the "As a Freshman in 2008" in this source, you decided to go ahead and copy-paste the entire paragraph? The only thing different from this version, is the words you've added instead of "..." to make it complete sentances. And how are we certain that you didn't do this to any other sources? Compare
"She previously played for the U.S. U-20 team during a two-match tour against Germany in June, 2009 as well as for the U-16, U-17, and U-18 U.S. national teams. She was also a member of the U-14 and U-15 U.S. girls National Development Program." with "... played U.S. U-20 team on a two-match tour against Germany in June, 2009 ... played on the U-16, U-17, and U-18 U.S. national teams ... a member of the U-14 and U-15 U.S. girls National Development Program." It's the same isn't it? Mentoz86 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion to re-word? Hmlarson (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
For starters, you could put the information in a more chronological order (because ages 14 and 15 come before ages 16-18) and move it to the "Early life" section. Also, think about different ways of expressing this information: "was a member of" could become "participated in" or "was a participant in", or maybe the article could say that "after participating in the U-14 and U-15 U.S. girls National Development Program, she played on the U.S. national U-16, U-17, and U-18 teams." --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Those make sense - thank you. I've made some additional copyedits and added a few more citations. Hmlarson (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Any word on this nomination? Are any additional changes needed? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Seeking another pair of eyes to review. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Still a bit close in phrasing and structure to the GoStanford source, IMO; further restructuring would be helpful here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Nikkimaria. I have made some considerable edits to the article today - expanding it with supplemental information and additional references. Hmlarson (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)