(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Brisbane Lions players after being presented with the 2023 AFL Women's premiership cup
Brisbane Lions players after being presented with the 2023 AFL Women's premiership cup

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk) and Storm machine (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 AFL Women's Grand Final; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - The result of the game is not interesting without context. If the Lions were a major underdog or otherwise unexpected, then this should be elaborated. Otherwise, a new hook is needed.

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hook needs work. SounderBruce 08:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the proposition that our DYK rules (or GA for that matter) demand citations include metadata such as authorship and date (other than access date). New review requested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the metadata issues (I do agree that we do not need metadata stuff since they're optional), we still need new hooks here. I've tried thinking up of some myself but so far I've come up empty (I don't think the "first time in Melbourne in several years" angle would be that catchy unless you're a big Aussie rules fan). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Tails Wx for proposing this over on Discord. @SounderBruce, Hawkeye7, and Storm machine: How does it sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. They carried a jerry can onto the oval at the conclusion of the game. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got into touch with Sounder over Discord DMs and to cut a long story short he is requesting for another editor to take a look at his. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (not a full re-review): "Hook needs work", as said above. How can a hike carry 14 jerry cans? Hikes do not have arms. They cannot carry cans. And why would a team have included a hike in the participants of their training? Surely they would limit it to team members. More serious than the confusing grammar is the confusing chronology. I don't see the connection between pre-season training and the final game. There is a whole season in between. The pre-season training is relevant to the season itself, obviously, but how is it relevant to this game? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very harsh. This is a well-written and well-presented article, and there is surely a viable hook in there somewhere. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with ALT1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, see David Eppstein's comment above; I agree with him that there is no reason for that tidbit to be included in the article at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final in spite of losing four key players from the previous year?
  • ALT4: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final in spite of losing three All-Australians and the League's reigning best and fairest player from the previous year?
  • ALT5: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final in spite of a high turnover of players over the previous four seasons? Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not simply ALT6: ... that a Brisbane Lions player said the sight of a jerrycan motivated her team during the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final? – Teratix ₵ 13:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT7: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final despite losing a team's worth of players?--Launchballer 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In re ALTs 3–5 and 7: we ran a pretty similar hook for 2021 AFL Women's Grand Final and it flopped – the second-lowest image hook on the entire year. ALT6 might work, although I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that it'll attract much attention. We run these AFL finals hooks about once a year, and they never really do.
    • In re the general direction of DYK: Yes, it's harsh to say "no", especially to an experienced nominator (to your credit, Hawkeye7, this is very a well-done article). However, I think it's bad that we pretty much always let nominators (and well-meaning bystanders who wish to help) wriggle by the interestingness requirement by allowing them to throw an indefinite number of hooks at the wall until just one reviewer is willing to say "yes". That soft power has rendered the interestingness criterion effectively toothless (as we've been discussing at WT:DYK), which makes more work for promoters and provides a worse experience to our readers, just so that nominators don't have to deal with a hook not passing. I don't think that's reasonable. We've spent two months trying to make something work, two months that could've gone to reviewing other hooks that are more competitive for that Main Page spot. At the end of it, are we going to come up with a hook that justifies that work, in quality and impact?
    • I'll say "nay" to ALTs 3, 4, 5, and 7. I'll leave ALT6 to another reviewer, but beseech them to just close this nomination if they don't feel that ALT6 is worth it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of your intended meaning there leeky, but nobody has veto powers here, we only have opinions, and where there is disagreement, things are sorted out by consensus. Having said that - I agree that ALT 6 is the most intriguing hook. The problem is that the hook fact is not currently in the article, although I think I saw it in one of the sources, so it needs to be added. Hawkeye7, could you do the honours please? Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY It is done. (Rev 21:6) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT6 verified. Thank you everybody for your input! Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.afl.com.au/aflw/news/1066784/aria-award-winning-artist-g-flip-to-perform-in-the-2023-telstra-pre-game-entertainment http://theguardian.com/sport/live/2023/dec/03/aflw-2023-grand-final-north-melbourne-vs-brisbane-live-updates-kangaroos-lions-squads-scores-results-kick-off-time-ikon-park-victoria http://afl.com.au/aflw/news/1068653/what-time-does-the-2023-nab-aflw-grand-final-start-all-you-need-to-know-about-north-melbourne-v-brisbane-lions. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war regarding disputed copyright violation[edit]

While reviewing the article I performed a copyright check via Earwig's Copyvio Detector. From my point of view the copyvio report showed copyright problems so I removed the text.

This was later disputed by @Hawkeye7 who reinstated the text (regarding the best on ground info) in this edit.

Here is the copyvio report from when Hawkeye7 reinstated the text– refer to the best on ground section.

Should this text remain in the article or be removed due to copyright issues?

(I have listed this discussion @ Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 December 5)––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring over this but 19.4%? Doesn't look like much of a copyright violation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, edit war was probably the wrong term, perhaps a content dispute is a better way to put it. Irregardless of the 19.4% rating which factors in the entire article which for the most part is clean, if you compare the best-on-ground medal paragraph to the source text, there are stark similarities which constitutes at best Closeparaphrasing, and at worst, a Copyvio. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIMITED how would you paraphrase the factual information that particular individuals were part of a panel that awarded the best-on-ground medal, and that the recently retired presenter of that medal has previously won the medal? Storm machine (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "two-time" to "dual". This lowers Earwing to 17.4%. It won't go much lower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Storm machine: I disagree that WP:LIMITED is the case here, there are plenty of ways that this can be rephrased. Especially the first part that says Phillips was part of a five-person voting panel chaired by Seven Network. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The article slips too far into sportswriting style in the match summary, introducing too many puffy terms (GAC 1b) for the article to be considered neutral (GAC 4). The article also doesn't adequately address the topic's main aspects (GAC 3a): in particular, it doesn't give enough background on North Melbourne and lacks reflections on the match's aftermath. Nearly a month into the review, there hasn't been decisive progress on these core issues, and given the clear differences of opinion on how severe these issues are it doesn't seem likely prolonging the review will help. The nomination fails, but I don't think the article is very far off success – it just needs a bit more work. – Teratix ₵ 01:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a look at this one. – Teratix ₵ 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 21: "She was the match-winner in the one-point preliminary final win over Adelaide, but Jenna Bruton's Grand Final lasted just three minutes"
  • Source 22: "Barnstorming Bruton saves the day. Garner, Ash Riddell and to a lesser extent, Mia King, have won all the midfield plaudits this year, but it was the ever-unheralded Jenna Bruton who starred in the third term. The diminutive midfielder dragged North Melbourne back into the game after Adelaide had taken control, recording 13 disposals and four inside 50s for the 20-minute term, her hard work leading directly to Randall's second major."
If you're saying you can attribute these editorialisations to sources, then these need to be attributed in-text and should not be in wikivoice. – Teratix ₵ 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had scored the first ever goal in an AFLW match back in 2017 relevant?

– Teratix ₵ 15:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_AFL_Women%27s_Grand_Final&oldid=1210526208"