Talk:2023 AFL Women's season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 12:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just on a first pass, the article fails to go over many key stories from the season – see ESPN and womens.afl for the sorts of things needing a lot more prose coverage – and there's a lot of space expended on things I'm not sure are justified to be included (detailed lists of leadership groups and milestones). I appreciate some of these lists took a lot of effort to compile.

I get that some of these things are just the conventional way AFL/W season articles have been written, but I'm not sure the conventional way is compatible with GA standards yet. I'll follow up with a more detailed review if there's signs of progress on these more fundamental concerns, but for now my worry is this article is a long way short on GAC 1(b) lead sections, 3(a) addresses main aspects and 3(b) unnecessary detail. – Teratix ₵ 15:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A few more sources that might be helpful: AFLW boss steps down AFLW prizemoney changes womens.afl club-by-club season reviews The Age on attendance figures 2023 AFLW season guide The Age on attendance, TV, scoring – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Teratix, thanks for the quick review. I've gone and covered more angles of the season as requested, and I've also expanded the lead a bit – feel free to suggest more if you think more can be added to these sections. However, I disagree that the club leadership and milestone tables are unnecessary (for what it's worth, it was never mentioned in the GA review for the previous season) – I feel like it could be worth discussing at project level, as I feel whatever we go with regarding those tables (and the lead, for that matter) should be consistent across the project. For now, though, I've addressed your other points. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that whatever consensus we come to on the tables in question is better discussed at project level and I'm happy to suspend judgement on them for the moment. Very pleased to see the progress on expansion and it's definitely at the stage where I'll follow up with a point-by-point review. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, here's the more thorough review:

• Not required for compliance but I would just use "AFLW" to name the league after first reference
• There's something very satisfying about the Melbourne was the reigning premier, but was eliminated / Adelaide won the minor premiership, but was eliminated / Brisbane won its second AFL Women's premiership structure in the lead, it flows very smoothly.

Nice – would be happy to make this more widespread. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Essendon players take the field prior to its match plural–singular mismatch

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• the season would begin during the pre-finals bye weekend of the AFL season

Not clear what you want me to change here? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Haha, this is what happens when I come back to finish my review after work and forget what my existing comments were. I was just going to say this language would be a bit convoluted for those not familiar with the AFL system – I suggest would begin in the first weekend of September, when the men's competition had its pre-finals break, or something like that. Might need to break the overall sentence in two. – Teratix ₵ 06:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• though ... Paul Marsh stated that players and the AFL were "a long way apart" on agreeing to a joint AFL-AFLW collective bargaining agreement the source makes it clear the CBA negotiations, in this context, were primarily potentially affecting the season's "length and structure", but this doesn't really come across in the article itself.

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• 15 minutes plus time-on explain or link time-on, this goes for quite a few terms in the rules amendments: boundary throw-in, runners, interchange cap etc.

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• were moved in ten metres does this mean "were moved ten metres inwards?"

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Runners were only permitted to enter the field three times per quarter ... until the last three minutes of each quarter and then they can't enter at all?

All of the sources that I've found on the new rules/adjustments used the same or similar language and didn't specify whether "...until the last three minutes of each quarter" meant unlimited or no entries in the last three minutes. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• introduced for classifiable offences no context for what a "classifiable offence" is

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• larger-capacitied venues not sure "capacitied" is a word, why not "larger-capacity" or even just "larger"

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• due to cricket which cricket in particular?

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• highest-seeded preliminary final winner maybe explain how seeding works somewhere

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• The grand final was held at Ikon Park despite the article doesn't give the AFL's side of the argument re turf at Marvel being unsuitable

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• A twelve-month pregnancy policy what does this mean exactly

 Done – left a note citing the CBA itself. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

set guidelines for continued participation and provide a safe and inclusive environment don't do much to clarify it for me. I don't know, Fox doesn't seem very concerned with the details so maybe we should just reflect the source and leave the wording at what it was before. – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• growth of the compeition typo

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• allow AIA Centre to become a live site not clear what a "live site" is

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Indigenous round rebrandings were a bit jarring, because you encounter the new names before you're given the explanations for which clubs have rebranded. Considering it's an article on the full season, not a single round, I would just use one name consistently for every club and just mention the rebrandings in the round notes. A quick look at match reports [1] [2] shows using the rebranded names outside official sources was by no means universal. This is the sort of thing that could be discussed in prose, and in fact you did do this in last season's article.

 Done – was happy to make the change, but as with the aforementioned tables, I think that this would benefit from a project-level discussion just to make sure everyone's on board with this change across the other affected articles. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why list Bannan and Vescio in the goalkicking section?

This was a deliberate choice to include all players who led the goalkicking at the end of a particular round, so long as there weren't more than three players – I had also implemented this at the 2000 AFL season article. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The situation on 2000 AFL season seems different because Everitt led for four rounds, as late as round 6, having kicked as many as 31 goals. In this case Vescio, Parry and Bannan were tied leaders for just one round, on just three goals. I can see the argument for consistency, and it's not a dealbreaker, just seems odd to me. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Any comment here? – Teratix ₵ 10:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If it was any more than three players in one round, I wouldn't have included it/there wouldn't be any players highlighted, so I feel like if we stuck to something like that, there's no harm in it being included. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is 2023–24 player movement relevant to an article on the 2023 season rather than 2024?

Given the trade period and draft happened immediately after the season and a vast majority of the player movement period as a whole (well, all of it, really) happened in 2023, I would argue yes. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

But the article's on the 2023 season, not on 2023 in general. Even though players have been recruited in 2023, they won't start appearing for their new club until 2024. Plus, given you cover the 2022–23 movement period in this article, wouldn't that imply we'd have to cover 2023–24 movement on 2024 AFL Women's season as well? Seems like unnecessary duplication. – Teratix ₵ 06:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done – I removed the 2022–23 mention. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

But the 2022–23 period is relevant because it determined what changes happened to the playing lists for the 2023 season. The problem is with the 2023–24 section. – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that both are relevant, hence why both were originally included. Yes, the player movement period introduces players to lists for the following season, but also includes retirements, delistings, etc. that are more relevant to the previous season. I still think that the timing is also a factor; take the 2018 off-season, for example, when the trade period was held in May – it just seems weird to me having a trade period that happened in May 2018 appear in the 2019 season article. I still think that, if we were to apply this section consistently, either the latter period or both should appear in the article, but like with some of the other elements that we've covered here, that could also be something that we can discuss at project level. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to sort this out at project level. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would still like to see more prose coverage of events during the season – I don't think the ESPN and womens.afl sources have been used to their fullest potential.

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic, this has really improved since the beginning of the review. Just a couple of prose follow-ups:

• criticised AFLW list sizes clarify Burke thought they were too small

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Prior criticised the AFLW fixturing process after being fixtured to play against reigning premier Melbourne the structure here reads as if Prior would play Melbourne by himself (although I'm honestly not sure the Eagles would have done much worse if that were the case!)

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• reigning premier Melbourne despite its 16th-place finish the previous season West Coast's 16th-place finish, not Melbourne's (heh)

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

– Teratix ₵ 07:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to a source check later today. Apologies for the delay following up here. – Teratix ₵ 06:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

All done, Teratix – let me know if you have more for me. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Another couple of follow-ups and a brief source review – once these are addressed I'm ready to pass this article. – Teratix ₵ 07:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, here's the source review:

• I spotchecked about 10% of the sources for text–source integrity and plagiarism issues (FN1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91, 101, 111, 121, 131, 141, 151, 161).

• FN51: no support for Symonds as Collingwood coach (maybe reuse FN132). Would you mind double-checking the other sources mention coaches as well as leadership groups?

 Done – only four of them needed sources, but I sourced them all using club sources announcing the coaching panels (like with the leadership groups); can/should make this the norm from now on. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Although FN121 does support Scheer's 50th AFLW goal, the fact it has to be inferred from a statistical report instead of an explicit mention does call the significance of these goal milestones into question. Looking at the others, it seems only half have been explicitly noted by a source.

• The only source I saw that's not already widely used and uncontroversial on Australian football articles was InDaily, which appears reputable. – Teratix ₵ 07:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All done, Teratix (changed/fixed what I could, anyway). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay following up here. Although I'm not entirely on board with some of the editorial choices, I recognise it is better for the project if we come to a consensus in a more centralised forum so whatever decision is made can be applied on a consistent basis across all season articles. The article is suitably well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and well-illustrated. (It is a nice touch that we have four different AFL editors' original images included). It passes good article review. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)