Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/2019 AFL Women's Grand Final

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following 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 Yoninah (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

2019 AFL Women's Grand Final

edit
(
)
  • ... that Erin Phillips (pictured) was named best on ground at the 2019 AFL Women's Grand Final despite only playing three quarters? Source: "Phillips was best on ground before tearing the ACL in her left knee in the third quarter" ([1])
    • ALT1:... that the 2019 AFL Women's Grand Final was played before a crowd of 53,034 – a record crowd for an AFL women's match? Source: "Played in front of a record crowd for a women's game of Australian football of 53,034" ([2])

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

  • The article has significant problems with non-neutral language and unencyclopedic turns of phrase, particularly in the match summary. For example, "a spectacular and inspiring image", "the Blues threw everything they had at Adelaide", etc.
    Tweaked wording etc Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Problems still present: "crowd barely had time to cheer", "easy first goal", "backfired spectacularly", "66-point demolition" etc. – Teratix ₵ 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any factual errors here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    OK: "absurdly inaccurate 1.11", "inspiring image" and "backfired spectacularly", among other examples, are all clear NPOV violations because they present opinions in Wikipedia's voice as facts. Perhaps widely held opinions, but opinions nonetheless. Other examples like "the crowd barely had time to cheer", "battling Fremantle for the wooden spoon - and getting it." and "66-point demolition" are not explicit violations, but give the article an excessively informal tone and make it read as if it was written from a fan's point of view. – Teratix ₵ 12:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I have deleted "absurdly" and "spectacularly", although I believe them to be accurate and not opinion; "inspiring" is supported by the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Two of the sources that mention the photo are opinion pieces and the third does not support 'inspiring'. Apart from that, the most blatant NPOV violations have been removed, so I'm happy to pass this considering that it meets the basic DYK standards, but I still think there's room for improvement. – Teratix ₵ 23:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    There's always room for improvement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: It's been a few days now; I'm ready and willing to give the green check once 'inspiring' has been reworded. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Deleted "inspiring". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Article is ready to go. – Teratix ₵ 00:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the image is not clear at a small size; there are significantly better ones available (e.g. File:Erin Phillips 2019.1.jpg, which is used in Phillips' article).
    Strongly disagree that it is a better image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    The 2019 image is more recent and has a contrasting background with Phillips's face clearly visible. The 2017 image does have higher resolution I suppose, but the difference is insignificant at the 100px size. – Teratix ₵ 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    The image has to be in the article, where the higher resolution is a factor, and I did not want an image with a black background in the article. in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Why not? – Teratix ₵ 12:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    It changes the look of the page. Since we disagree, I have swapped the image to the one at right. ALT1 is therefore stricken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I think that's an excellent compromise. On a minor note, the caption could be shortened to "Erin Phillips", as that's sufficient to identify the subject. – Teratix ₵ 23:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Shortened the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Avoid citing YouTube.
    Nothing can be done about that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Could you at least cite the author or publisher of the channel? – Teratix ₵ 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    The concern was that while there is an abundance of sources saying that she will play the GF, there were few saying that she did. (Although of course we both know she did because we saw it.) Swapped for a lesser newspaper source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The inline citation supporting ALT1 needs to be directly after the relevant sentence.
    Moved the citation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The article otherwise meets the criteria. – Teratix ₵ 10:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hook must be run with the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I agree with Teratix that the full-face image is better at thumbnail size. The sideways image is good at a larger size in the article, but not here. Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    Teratix agreed with the image we have here. The only full-face image we have is File:Erin Phillips 2019.1.jpg but it is only half the resolution, and is already over-used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This image is the best compromise considering the varying requirements of a thumbnail and a larger picture in the article itself. If it's really that big a problem you could run ALT1 instead. – Teratix ₵ 00:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I could also run it without the image. ALT1 has been struck. Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a perfectly fine hook, it was only struck because the review was focusing on the first hook. – Teratix ₵ 04:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    ALT1 was provided as a non-image hook; the main hook is not so good without the image. Having changed the image in the article so it could run with an image, I struck the non-image hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering the newer image was superior to the older, I'm not sure this matters. It's fine for ALT1 to be run without an image anyway. – Teratix ₵ 09:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. Here is ALT1 again:
  • ALT1: ... that the 2019 AFL Women's Grand Final was played before a crowd of 53,034 – a record crowd for an AFL women's match?
  • But it is really repetitive ("AFL Women's...AFL women's..."crowd of"..."a record crowd". If you tighten it up, you get something like:
  • ALT2: ... that a record crowd of 53,034 watched the 2019 AFL Women's Grand Final? -- but frankly, that doesn't seem very hooky. Really, there's nothing wrong with running the first hook without the image. We do it all the time. Yoninah (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    That is because of the lame way you put it. That crowd is the record for an standalone women's sporting event in Australia. The world record for a women's club football match is 60,739 - for a soccer match between Atlético Femenino and Barcelona Femenino just two weeks before. The AFLW crowd would have beaten the previous record. (The world record for a standalone women's sports event is 90,185 which was set at the women’s soccer World Cup final between the United States and China at California’s Rose Bowl in 1999. To surpass these records, the AFL will need to move the venue for 2020 to the MCG.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We have a multitude of equally legitimate options here:
  1. Run ALT0 with the previously agreed-upon image
  2. Run ALT0 with no image
  3. Run ALT2 which seems perfectly hooky to me
  4. Run some variant of ALT2 to satisfy concerns of hookiness. – Teratix ₵ 01:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Back again. Since I don't see an inline cite for the fact that it's a record for an AFL Women's match, but I do see the cite for the standalone record, could we reword it this way:
  • ALT2a: ... that 53,034 people watched the 2019 AFL Women's Grand Final—a record crowd for a standalone women's sporting event in Australia? -- this will also make it clear what the Grand Final is and what AFL refers to. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The source says: "Played in front of a record crowd for a women's game of Australian football of 53,034" (fn 11) and "The crowd figure at Adelaide Oval for Sunday’s AFLW grand final – won by Adelaide by 45 points – is believed to be the largest attendance at a stand-alone women's sports event in Australia." (fn 12) I doubt if readers in other countries will know what AFL or a Grand Final is. The Women's Big Bash League reckon they can beat it and maybe the world record too; they've booked the MCG for their next final in March 2020. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Readers might not know the precise terms but they should be able to glean from context that it refers to some sort of sporting competition final. Who clicks on a hook they know everything about? – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, ALT2 it is. Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What is this? Firstly, the nominator cannot edit his own hooks in prep. Secondly, I was told to choose between ALT0 and ALT2. I don't even see an ALT1a. Thirdly, the wording in the hook that was edited in prep is highly repetitive. Returning from prep. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to switch to ALT2a. ALT2 is no good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
OK. Promoting ALT2a. Yoninah (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2019_AFL_Women%27s_Grand_Final&oldid=894689058"