Wikipedia

Talk:Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics/GA1

< Talk:Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Figureskatingfan in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago66 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, I'm reviewing this article. I did the GA review for Cobi Crispin, one of the important players on this team, so I'm going into this review with at least a little knowledge. My practice is to fill out the template and then do a more thorough prose and source review, as needed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

At first glance, I see some prose problems. Parts of the article read like a news report. After looking at the first few refs, I see a problem with how you integrate them. See below for a more thorough prose and source review.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    See below.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    I think that the lead can be a little longer, and do a better job at summarizing the entire article. I'm AGF that the lists and tables are formatted correctly. I suggest eliciting the assistance of someone who is more knowledgeable about sports articles to look at it.
    Expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    At first glance, the reliability of the sources look good. I may find some issues as I go through the sources more below. You use a lot of Olympics-generated sites, but I'll AGF that you needed to include them for comprehensiveness.
    I can give you copies of any material you require. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
    C. No original research:  
    No OR at first glance. I may change my mind later, though; we'll see.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    I'm AGF that you've included all the information available about the topic.
    B. Focused:  
    Looks good thus far, but I'll take a closer look later.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    The neutrality could be improved, which I suspect will occur as we improve the prose.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    Very stable; the work of one main editor.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    All images are free and tagged correctly.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    The images are great, especially of the game against Canada (very cool). I have two questions about the team portraits, though. Are they organized in any specific way, like by their positions? If not, they should be organized in some way, even if it's alphabetical. Why are the images of Merritt and Vinci different?
    Reorganized them into their positions. Two portraits were taken of each Australian Paralympian, one smiling and one not. The unsmiling ones were used for their ID cards. The smiling photographs were used for the web site. User:TaraMacphail persuaded the APC to release these ones. Unfortunately, not everyone had their picture taken. Re-ordered the pictures into team order. The photographs of the Canada game were a lucky strike. I have photographs from many of the games, but because of my status as a Wikimedia journalist, they can only be released under a free CC licence, which cannot be used on the Wikipedia.   Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    I'll let you know when I'm done, and once you address my concerns, I'll pass this article to GA.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Above changes are fine. Now I'll start the prose and source reviews. Please bear with my relative lack of exposure to Australian English; if I speak out of turn, let me know and then ignore me. ;) I also tend to copyedit as I go and will include my reasons here if I think it's necessary. If you disagree, ask me about it here or revert it back.

Lead: The Gliders, who had won silver in the 2000 Summer Paralympics in Sydney and the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens, but had never won gold. I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. "Who" is a relative pronoun, so it needs a nonessential clause, not a conjunctive phrase. Easy fix: "The Gliders won silver in the 2000 Summer Paralympics in Sydney and the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens, but they never won gold."

Background

  • Prior to 2012, the Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team, known as the Gliders...but have never won. You state that the Gliders won silver and bronze medals, but then you state that they "never won". I know what you mean--that they never won gold, but strictly speaking, you've contradicted yourself here. I suggest adding "a gold medal". Also, you're mixing tenses, so I suggest that you change the final phrase to, "but had not won a gold medal".
  • There were only three newcomers: Amber Merritt, Sarah Vinci and Leanne Del Toso. Passive voice; how about: "Amber Merritt, Sarah Vinci and Leanne Del Toso were the only three newcomers."
    • That doesn't sound right; the "three" does fit then. I might also add that with 35 international games, Vinci would have been considered a international veteran on most of the other teams, with the notable exception of Germany. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yah. So what you're saying is that these three players were new to the team? If so, how about: Amber Merritt, Sarah Vinci and Leanne Del Toso were the only three players new to the team." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • ...had earned her the accolade of Australian Women’s Wheelchair Basketball International Player of the Year. I'd remove the word "accolade", which is a little peacocky, and replace it with the phrase, "which resulted in her being named..."

Group stage: The Gliders knew they faced a formidable task just to make the finals. Sounds too much like a news report; plus, no sources support such a statement.

Brazil

  • The Gliders' 2012 Paralympic campaign began on 30 August... More news-speak. How about something like: "The Gliders' first game in the Paralympics was on 30 August..."
  • The Gliders had not played Brazil in four years and knew little about them. All they had were some video tapes. How about: "The Gliders had not played Brazil in four years, and the little they knew about them had been from watching a few video tapes."
  • The game was close and tough. More news-speak, and perhaps your own observation. If you can find a source that says the same thing, please include it. I think that from your description of the game, the readers will be able to figure out that it was a close and tough game.
  • A technical foul saw her straight back again to make it 48-43... Straight back where? I'm fairly certain you meant back to the free throw line, but be specific about it. How about: "A technical foul brought her back to the free throw line to make it 48-43..."
  • ...Amber Merritt scored one from the paint to put the Gliders back in front. I don't know what "from the paint" means, and I'm sure that other readers won't know, either. Please explain.
  • She followed this by taking a defensive rebound and then another great shot to make it 52-48. I'd avoid the word "this"; you can even state, "She followed-up". More news-speak; please replace "another great shot" with more encyclopedic language. Couldn't you say that she took a shot after taking the rebound? Or something basketball-y?
  • Brazil was able to score once more, but the clock was now against them. Time ran out, and the Gliders were the winners, 52-50. And some more news; I'd remove the phrase about the clock, and just say that Brazil wasn't able to score again because time ran out.

Great Britain: The Gliders' next match was against the home team, and was held at the larger North Greenwich Arena... I know you mean Gr. Britain, but you need to say that. (Just add "Great Britain," after the comma after "team".) And larger than what? I'm sure you mean larger than their previous venue; how about: "...and was held at the North Greenwich Arena, a larger venue than their first game..."

Canada

  • Canada shocked the Gliders by winning the first quarter 20-12, but strong defensive play by Clare Nott and Kylie Gauci helped the Gliders reverse this in the second... More news-speak and personal observation. Let the reader decide if it was shocking; just state what happened, especially since Triscari calls it a tough game. I'd just strike the phrase and begin with the teams' performance. I want to avoid more of the word "this"; How about: "...but strong defensive play by Clare Nott and Kylie Gauci in the second quarter only gave Canada a one point lead..."
  • You need to identify Triscari.
By golly, you're right! Sorry about that oversight. Question: I notice that you reverted the times that I removed the first names of those mentioned. Remember, that after you've identified them, you only need to refer to them by their last names afterwards. Unless you have a good reason not to, of course.
Not a good reason... where I come from, only men are referred to by their last names alone. Only my parents normally referred to me by my first name before I moved to Canberra; my sibling and I refer to each other by our nicknames. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The MOS WP:MOSBIO doesn't differ between how men and women are referred to in WP. The only FA about a female Olympian (which is deplorable, but I've been around long enough not to be surprised) is Sandra Morgan, and it follows that convention. I'd like you to follow it here, please. Remember, we must always fight against the gender gap! There's no reason why male and female athletes should be treated differently, especially how they're referred. Question: is it true that Aussies tend to call each other by nicknames and not by their given names? Just curious. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The MOS is fine. Let's stick with it.   Some people have nicknames that are normally used, but most do not. I used to work with a guy we called "Mungo" all the time. The lack of FAs on female athletes is deplorable, and I do intend to do something about it. I have gathered material for articles on Alyson Annan, Lauren Burns, Anna Meares and Gillian Rolton. But the paralympians have first priority at the moment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Merritt quote is very cool, but I totally missed the irony. I mean, you state earlier that she's British, but since I'm unfamiliar with her and with the team, it went right past me. I wonder if there's any way you can provide the punch line for me and others like me. I see that your Wikinews article doesn't do it, but I think you can here, anyway. How about: "Amber Merritt, in her strong British accent, said that..." Other editors might think that it gets into OR, but I'd disagree, since it's stating the obvious, which we get to do sometimes. (The word "said" was repeated, so I removed one.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
 Y Done. I think it will also remind readers of the accents of the other Gliders. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Netherlands

  • ...Bridie Kean soon equalised, assisted by Sarah Stewart. Do you mean that Kean tied the score? If so, I think putting it that way is clearer.
    • From the Wiktionary: equalize: (intransitive, sports) To make the scoreline equal by scoring points. [from 20th c.]
  • The Dutch teams responded... Don't you mean Dutch "team"?
  • They fared little better in the second quarter... I think "fared little better" is unencyclopedic and observational, so I think you should remove the phrase and just state that the Aussies shut down the Dutch's opportunities in the second quarter.
  • Throwing everything they had at the Gliders won the high scoring final quarter 20-18... I suspect you mean the Netherlands threw everything, but there's no direct object. How about: "The Dutch team threw everything they had at the Gliders, but Australia won the high scoring final quarter 20-18..."
  • The rest of the team also posted fine performances. More of the same. How about: "The rest of the team performed equally well."

Quarter final - Mexico

  • The reward for this was a quarterfinal berth against Mexico... Avoiding "this"; how about combining it with the previous sentence, like this: "As a result, the Gliders topped their pool, and they were given a quarterfinal berth against Mexico."
  • John Triscari was under no illusions that Mexico would be a pushover...' Unencyclopedic; how about: "Triscari did not feel the match against Mexico would be easy..."
Then let's say that. How about: Even though he was not worried about losing, Triscari did not feel..." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)
 Y Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The Glider's game plan was to get on top of Mexico early, going at them as hard as they had against the Netherlands. This is too close to the source. How about: "The Gliders planned to score higher than Mexico early, and play as aggressively against them as they had played against the Netherlands."
  • Stewart took the tap, and lost. Explain what "took the tap" means, please.
    •  Y Linked. I was originally going to start the account of every match with this, but it doesn't seem quite as amusing when I have to face Sarah Stewart next week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Gauci, a two-point player, took a spectacular three point shot to take the score to 17-8. I'm sure it was spectacular, but you're observing again. Let your readers decide if it was so; please remove the word.
  • Nor did Mexico have any answer to Merritt, who ultimately scored 14 points with 70 per cent shooting, or Crispin, who racked up twelve points with 67 per cent shooting. Avoid beginning a sentence with a conjunction like "nor". I suggest this: "Mexico was unable to recover from Australia's high scoring from Merritt, who scored 14 points with 70 per cent shooting, and Crispin, who racked up twelve points with 67 per cent shooting."
  • In the second quarter things only got worse for Mexico. More observing; how about: "Mexico fell further behind in the second quarter."
  • Another steal by Merritt led to a runaway break... Please either link or explain "runaway break".
  • In the third quarter, the Glider's intensity dropped off. More observing; I'd remove it so the readers can decide about the team's lack of intensity.
  • ...gave Mexico a chance to stage a minor recovery by outscoring Australia for the quarter by one point... More observing; I'd remove "a minor recovery" and say "gave Mexico a chance to outscore Australia..."
  • The final quarter got off to an unimpressive start for both teams... More of the same; I suggest removing the phrase, which mean you'd have to start the sentence with "In the final quarter,..."
  • With the game in the bag, the Glider's intensity seemed to drop off. Observational and too close to the source.
  • The source also characterizes the second half in this way, and your wording makes it seem like the Gliders attitude changed after Merritt's shot. I'd either put the idea earlier, when you start to talk about the last half, or to make it simple, you could just quote the source: "According to Basketball Australia, "With the game in the bag, the second half did little to excite"."
  • One more source review: I think you need to do a better job at incorporating ref 23. I would like you to include that Crispin thought that their loss to Canada didn't mean the team was out of the running for the finals, that the match-up was considered one-sided, and that the Gliders wasted opportunities early in the game.
    •  Y All the mainstream media wanted to talk to was Cobi Crispin and Amber Merritt. That's why I spoke with the other players. In the end it may have been a bit overwhelming for Merritt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Very cool. I was going to say this at the end, but it fits here, so I'll say it now. Hawkeye, you should be very proud of the work you do for Wikimedia. It's very cool that you were able to report on these games and then bring it here to WP. It's a tricky thing--adapting how you write for Wikinews to the articles here. I find myself getting too close to the articles I work on here, so it must really be tricky for you! You're doing an admirable job, though; keep it up! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I try to write the articles so as to draw in and engage the readers. It was one thing to be objective with the feisty Gliders; it was quite another when dealing with the emotionally fragile Belles (the goalball team). I am hoping that this article can become the first Paralympic Featured Article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

More later. Thanks for making your changes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

One pic I'd love to be able to use is this one of the Gliders' relatives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Awesome. This is exactly why I love the Olympics so much. It's obvious that there's so much pride about this team, and for good reason. They're remarkable, and not just because of their disabilities. Unfortunately, it's difficult to access the Paralympics here in the States. I may have to try harder in 2016. Hawk, one of your strengths as a writer is that you get that it's okay to put our voice in our articles. They should read like stories, and this one definitely does. That's sometime I'm learning these days, and something that's sorely lacking in many WP articles. I'm sure that this will be FA; I suggest that you get more input before you submit it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Semi final:

  • The entire section is full of the same issues described above--phrases like "chalked up", "good shot", "bad pass", and "ferocious Australian defence". Instead of making suggestions like I've done up to now, I'll leave it to you to improve. Or if you like, I can just copyedit it for you.
  • Was there anything written about the Gliders' reaction to such a close game?

Gold medal match

  • Perhaps you should put the sentence about the silver medal in the previous section?
  • This was a team the Gliders had narrowly defeated 48-46 in the Gliders World Challenge in Sydney just a few months before. To further avoid "this", how about: "The Gliders narrowly defeated Germany 48-46 in the Gliders World Challenge in Sydney just a few months before."
  • Same issues as above, with the same challenge and offer to help. ;)
  • I think you have too many sources at the end of the first and second paragraphs in this section.
    •  Y Trimmed them back

Source review

  • Refs 2 and 3 don't support this statement: The youngest was her 19-year old team mate Amber Merritt, who had not even been born when Carter had played in Barcelona.[2][3] Ref 2 supports the Paralympics Carter had played in (the previous sentence here), and ref 3 states Merritt's age, but neither makes the connection you make here, that Merritt hadn't been born yet the first tie Carter went to the Paralympics. I think that you should strike it because it seems to be your own observation, unless you find a source that states it. I'm sorry about that; it's a very cool statement, and seems obvious, but if it's your own observation, it's OR.
    • It's not OR. That's stating facts not in reliable, published sources. If Carter played in 1992 and Merritt was born in 1993, both of which are reliably sourced, then it follows that she was playing before Merritt was born. All I am doing is restating two facts. It's just a way of wording it. It would be different if I was advancing an argument, but all I am doing is stating facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Refs 4, 5, and 6: Same feedback as the Crispin GAC: you tend to WP:OVERCITE here. You need to keep ref 4, of course, but refs 5 and 6 support the same thing--that Ponta was in the hall of fame. It's not a controversial statement, so I recommend removing one; ref 6 seems to be the better one.
  • You need to cite a source for your claim, in the Background section, the reason for Carter being sidelined in Sydney. Ref 7 does, so please add it after the statement. Your claim that her return "capped a remarkable comeback", however, isn't supported by any ref; plus, it's unencyclopedic writing. Again, make no statement that you can't back up with a source.
    • I have a source! "Amanda Carter is one of the great comeback stories of the Australian women’s wheelchair basketball team." "Amanda Carter". Australian Paralympic Committee. Retrieved 22 May 2013. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
    •  Y Crispin was written by User:LauraHale and copy edited by me; this is just me. Removed link 5. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • You cite ref 2 at the end of the last sentence in the Background section; that article talks about Carter, not Merritt and Crispin. Please remove.
  • Group stage: There's no source for the team lost against the Netherlands.

More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and fixed the surname issue, and then passed this article to GA. Congrats, and good luck in taking it further. I look forward to its future FAC. I suggest that you have at least one other editor take a look at it before submitting it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_women%27s_national_wheelchair_basketball_team_at_the_2012_Summer_Paralympics/GA1&oldid=556587397"