- 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 Allen3 talk 10:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pat Connaughton
edit- ...
that Pat Connaughton cost himself upwards of $1 million by not choosing between baseball and basketball?
- Reviewed:
IOUTemplate:Did you know nominations/Ives Lake cisco
- Reviewed:
5x expanded by Muboshgu (talk), Dale Arnett (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC).
I don't understand the maths of the hook. It is postulated that he could have earnt $1 million if he just played baseball. As it is, he earnt $428,100. Take one away from the other, and you're left with just over half a million. Other than this, the article is fine. The length and expansion both check out fine, and spot-checks reveal no evidence of close ara-phrasing or copyvio. Still waiting for a QPQ though. Harrias talk 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. It's not well enough articulated. The source said he could've gotten upwards of $1 million, but he did sign for $400K. We could go with the direct quote...
- ALT1
... that Pat Connaughton "cost himself some money" by not choosing between baseball and basketball? - QPQ on the way. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem accurate to say that he didn't choose. It looks like he chose to honor his commitment to play basketball. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- What I meant is that he didn't choose one or the other. If he had agreed to drop basketball to focus on baseball, he would've gotten more $$$. Multi-sport athletes at the professional level are rare. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mandarax, Muboshgu, how about replacing "not choosing between" with "continuing to play both" to break the impasse:
- ALT2:
... that Pat Connaughton "cost himself some money" by continuing to play both baseball and basketball?—BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2:
Sounds good chaps. The article has not been edited since my last review, when it was fine. The hook is factual, interesting and referenced inline, and the QPQ is done. Good work all round. Harrias talk 16:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I seem to be the only holdout. Since everyone else agrees, maybe I'm being too picky, so go with it if you want. But it still seems misleading to me. He cost himself the money by honoring his commitment to play basketball instead of quitting it to go play baseball for the Orioles. I would prefer to chop it as:
- ALT3:
... that Pat Connaughton "cost himself some money" by continuing to play basketball? Or, if you'd rather keep both sports in the hook, tack "rather than baseball" onto the end.MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- But "rather than baseball" is misleading, because he was still playing both sports, and without baseball you're losing a primary bit of information, since it's the baseball signing money that was presumably reduced. Strictly speaking, it's also that he wanted to finish college and get his degree first, along with his commitment to finishing out basketball, that cost him the money. I'm fine with the ALT2 hook as is. (I did strike ALT1, given the objections.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The article does not make it clear that he was playing pro baseball while he was playing basketball during his senior year. It looked to me that the article was saying that the Orioles let him play out his basketball season before starting to play baseball for them. After reading your note, I consulted one of the sources, which cleared it up. Maybe it's obvious for people who know anything about sports contracts, but I'm not one of those people. Now that I know that, I think a more interesting hook would be:
- ALT4:
... that Pat Connaughton "cost himself some money" by continuing to play college basketball while signed to play professional baseball?MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- ALT4:
- The article does not make it clear that he was playing pro baseball while he was playing basketball during his senior year. It looked to me that the article was saying that the Orioles let him play out his basketball season before starting to play baseball for them. After reading your note, I consulted one of the sources, which cleared it up. Maybe it's obvious for people who know anything about sports contracts, but I'm not one of those people. Now that I know that, I think a more interesting hook would be:
- But "rather than baseball" is misleading, because he was still playing both sports, and without baseball you're losing a primary bit of information, since it's the baseball signing money that was presumably reduced. Strictly speaking, it's also that he wanted to finish college and get his degree first, along with his commitment to finishing out basketball, that cost him the money. I'm fine with the ALT2 hook as is. (I did strike ALT1, given the objections.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly I'm not sure for the reason for that confusion, since the article does explicitly state that the Orioles let him keep playing basketball. The last sentence of the "Collegiate career" section says "He agreed to terms with the Orioles, receiving a signing bonus of over $400,000,[1] with the Orioles permitting Connaughton to play basketball for the Irish in his senior year.[10][11]" – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misread what I wrote. I know that the article explicitly states that the Orioles let him keep playing basketball, and I said that above. What I didn't see was that he was playing pro baseball at the same time. I thought the bonus was to lock him in to a contract to play baseball after he finished playing basketball. What I failed to notice before was the end of the "Professional baseball career" section which says "he left the IronBirds to return to the Fighting Irish basketball team". I still don't like ALT2 because: 1) Although it doesn't say it explicitly, I took it to mean that he played both at the same time, which he apparently didn't. 2) It says that continuing to play both baseball and basketball is what "cost himself some money", but it was only the playing basketball part that cost him money; playing baseball is what made him money. But everything can be interpreted other ways, so if everyone still wants to use ALT2, go for it. (Although I still like ALT3 best, because it's unambiguously true, but with an element of mystery.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have a couple of issues. First, we will never know what bonus he might have gotten, which is why the source says "may have lost money"; the hook passes it off as a definitive. Second, it sounds somewhat negative, as if he did not know what he was doing. Per WP:DYK, we should avoid "hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." (bolding is from the source) Moreover, the ESPN source states "Connaughton had another reason to return to South Bend -- an academic one."[1]. If the hook is to remain in the area, it needs to emphasize that he chose to forego potential money, not that he unwittingly lost a sure thing.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- ALT5:
... that Pat Connaughton chose to forego the possibility of a $1 million signing bonus by choosing to continue his college basketball career?- The article doesn't mention that he knew his worth and consciously decided to eschew the money. He probably did, but WP:V. Is there a source that can support this?—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- He hasn't commented on it directly, as far as I know. It's "people in the know" who have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think we the hook should be on a negative aspect of him "losing" money unless it's verifiable that it was a conscious decision. Alternatively, it's an interesting enough article where I think another hook in a different area would be possible.—Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think of this as a "negative", it's just his valuing his senior year with Notre Dame's basketball team enough that he was willing to take a reduced bonus. Trouble is, I can't think of a different hook. Perhaps I should withdraw this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't withdraw it. I agree that it's not negative. Quite the opposite; it reflects on him very positively that he had the integrity to honor his commitment to play basketball. I think the following addresses the concern about ALT5:
- ALT6:
... that a Major League Baseball executive claimed that Pat Connaughton could have earned a $1 million signing bonus if he had not chosen to instead continue his college basketball career? - It may benefit from some further tweaking, but it generally seems okay. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That hook works for me. User:Bagumba? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I still prefer a hook that is more empowering and less negative about losing money. We haven't found a source that is verifiable that he knew the amount of money he was sacrificing. I added to the article, and propose ALT7 below. I agree that the article is DYK worthy, and invite a new reviewer. —Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)- ALT7: ... that Pat Connaughton was forthright about his intent to continue playing college basketball despite warnings that it would impact his prospects in baseball?
- That one is fine by me, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- How about this hook:
- ALT8:
... that baseball's Baltimore Orioles gave Pat Connaughton a signing bonus of over $400,000 even though he would be returning to Notre Dame for his senior year to play basketball and finish his degree?—BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- ALT8:
- How about this hook:
- That one is fine by me, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That hook works for me. User:Bagumba? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think of this as a "negative", it's just his valuing his senior year with Notre Dame's basketball team enough that he was willing to take a reduced bonus. Trouble is, I can't think of a different hook. Perhaps I should withdraw this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think we the hook should be on a negative aspect of him "losing" money unless it's verifiable that it was a conscious decision. Alternatively, it's an interesting enough article where I think another hook in a different area would be possible.—Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- He hasn't commented on it directly, as far as I know. It's "people in the know" who have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
