Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 [1].

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to like about this article? It is brilliantly written, beautifully illustrated and lavishly referenced. There is drama and controversy, triumph and heartbreak. Admittedly, no Paralympic article has even been promoted to Featured, but none had made it to A class before this one either. It has had two previous reviews, but no problems with the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

I know nothing about basketball, so at least I have no preconceptions. Looks pretty good to me, but a few comments below, most of which you can ignore if you disagree

from whom much was hoped—perhaps "expected" for last word?
No, it was hope, not expectation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is some logic to the 5-2-5 image layout, but there's nothing to say what it is. Also, can the images be centred? May not be feasible, so not a big deal
All part of the magic of template:gallery. Fiddled with this, and I have fixed the problem. The layout adjusts to your screen width, so you should now see 5-5-2, but if you can get it a bit wider it will be 6-6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Canada had beaten them… the Netherlands had also beaten them… Canada would be hard to beat.—a bit repetitive?
Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
watching video tapes.—Literally? By 2012 you'd expect DVD or internet downloads
Yeah, literally. They were on VHS. Quality was crap too. I would add this, but I can't find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merritt, in her British accent—to me, sounds as if she is making a choice, perhaps who had a British accent
Done. Amber's British accent became more pronounced during the London games. Since then it has greatly softened. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Netherlands based on defeating them—perhaps add in their head-to-head
Done. The ramifications of that were considerable; the Netherlands had to face Germany, while the Gliders went up against the USA. The Netherlands' loss cost them a shot at gold; but they credit the Gliders' win with giving them the bronze medal, as the USA were morally crushed by their loss. And they had not forgotten this in Rio; this figured in their preparation for back-to-back bronze medals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
their shooting was worse than their rivals—possessive rivals' I think
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have been addressed, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"Stewart took the tap, and lost": What did they lose?
Possession. Re-worded. Wikipedia uses "tip" instead of "tap"; changed the article to conform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"runaway break": I'm not familiar with the term.
Occasionally our Australian basketball jargon is polluted with terms from football. Changed to "fast break", which is the term used on Wikipedia
"The Gliders played Germany like they had played against and defeated the United States": nonparallel; "played" can take "against" or not, but not both in the same sentence.
Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support from Syek88. I was attracted to this article among those in the list of Featured Article candidates only because of the extreme length of the title. I confess no knowledge of the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to be a comprehensive article that cannot have been easy to write. I have made a string of copy-editing changes, simply because doing so was easier than listing them here. Please undo any of them with which you disagree. Some other things:

The treatment of numbers seems inconsistent. Sometimes single-digit numbers are expressed in numeric form (8 points) while double-digit numbers are spelt out (twelve team members). It becomes noticeable to the reader because the article uses so many numbers.
I've changed the words in the Background section to numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What has Ms Merritt's British accent got to do with her comments about the Canada match?
The irony of talking about "the Australian way" in a British accent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph about the semifinal seems to descend into unnecessary play-by-play detail that the remainder of the article avoids.
Trimmed the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence about the semifinal says that the Gliders' win was controversial. The preceding sentences establish drama, but not controversy. For example, the article says nothing about dirty play (I understand deliberate fouling is common in basketball) or refereeing errors. Why was the win controversial?
The article says: Spectators saw Hollermann's shot from the paint hit the ring with a second to go, but the shot clock was not reset. Team USA's Alana Nichols rebounded, and put the ball in the bucket, but not before time ran out and a shot clock violation was called. The spectators included myself. A Youtube video can be viewed in the external links (forward to 1:40 to view the incident), but at the time Olympic/Paralympic basketball had no provision for video review. This was changed for the 2016 Rio Olympics/Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the ranking system worked between Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Australia seems to have finished ahead of the Netherlands because of their head-to-head result, but wouldn't this mean Canada finished ahead of Australia? What has Canada's result against Great Britain got to do with it? The table in the article talks about "Tiebreaker 1" and "Tiebreaker 2", which again I don't understand. And
Wheelchair basketball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Women
tells me nothing either.
Turning to the IWBF rules (pp. 73-77), we find that the first tiebreaker is on the basis of points differential in the games between them. The three games were CAN 59 –70 NED, AUS 50 – 57 CAN, and NED 49 – 58 AUS. So the point differentials were: CAN: -11 + 7 = -4; NED: 11 - 9 = +2; AUS: -7 + 9 = +2. Australia and the Netherlands were still tied, but Australia beat the Netherlands, and so claimed first place in the second tiebreaker. Should this be added to the article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The summary of each match says "Referees:" but in each case there is only one referee.
Yes. It's a feature of the template {{Basketballbox}}. At the Olympics there is one "referee" and two "umpires". The template is used by thousands of articles, so it would be tricky to change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards Syek88 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! The article was very difficult to write, and no Paralympic article has ever become featured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of the tiebreakers is difficult! My only remaining comment about that part is that "head-to-head match" is tautologous. And my apologies for missing the British accent joke! Syek88 (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains several of these. My favourite is "Gauci, a two-point player, took a three-pointer" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry

~~Consider linking Brazil, Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands to their respective teams.~~
I hadn't done so because the pages did not exist; but someone has since created one for Canada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~"the last two of which had recently beaten them." - During the previous tournament?~~
Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Prior to 2012 ..." - This should be linked to the Paralympics article~~
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lead
adequately summarises
the article. Given, the article is about the team's display at a particular tournament it could be a little more detailed. Viz., Squads, dates, prize money, et al.,
Prize money? Oh no, there was no prize money. Had the Americans won a medal they would have received US$3,000 each, but the Gliders didn't get a brass razoo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Got it! —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Paralympic Games' -> Paralympic games~~
No, Paralympic Games is capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the first para (Background) is a bit too short.
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given its length, wouldn't it be better to note it earlier when we introduced her? —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~The second para seems fine, but it could do a bit more with information about the changes in the squad (if any) and the tournament.~~
But I already said that there three new players. Melanie Domaschenz, Melanie Hall and Kathleen O'Kelly-Kennedy were not selected, and Liesl Tesch had retired since 2008. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~The quote should either be placed inside the quote box or at least quotes.~~
Per
MOS:QUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"12 included 9 veterans" - twelve included nine veterans per
WP:MOSNUM

Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Will review the rest later. —Vensatry _(talk) 13:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit

Talking about the opening para of the 'Group stage', is there a special reason to highlight their encounter against Canada, while leaving out the rest of the teams?
Expanded the quote to encompass the Netherlands. Despite this, the group was still better than Group B, where they would have been up against Germany and the USA. The quote contains an irony; despite what he says, the Gliders' shooting percentage did not improve. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" ... at the Basketball Arena in Olympic Park in Stratford, London,[10] also known as "the Marshmallow"." - This gives an impression that the city of London is referred by the name. Also why include the inside quotes?
Changed to 'a venue also known as "The Marshmallow"'. The "the" is in quotes because it was always referred to that way. Several of the venues were referred to by other than their official names. In the case of the Basketball Arena, that name could easily be confused with the North Greenwich Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a minor change. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we cannot talk about the Marshmallow in the present tense. It was demolished in 2013. There was some talk in 2012 about it being used again in Rio, but the Rio basketball was held at the Carioca Arena 1 and the nearby Rio Olympic Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pardon my ignorance, is 'affair' encyclopedic (when used in the context of the game)?~~
Well it's a common sports idiom. [2] It's used here to try and avoid too much repetition of "match" and "game". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Who was the Great Britain coach?~~
Gary Peel. He was sacked after London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~9 - 7 = +2, 11 - 9 = +2, 7 - 11 = -4 - Should the arithmetic bits go inside a bracket?~~
I don't know if that would be practical. The idea was to allow the reader to follow the arithmetic. The head of the IWBF, Maureen Orchid,m explained it to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"He warned the media" - Really?
Changed to "cautioned". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Merritt, who had a British accent" - Is it necessary?
Per the above, it is another ironic reference. Another reviewer asked me to add it. Do you think it should be remove. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement reads more like a press release. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~""They will come back!" Triscari warned his players. "We've got to stop them!"[47]" The second quote is unattributed.~~
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a personal preference: The statements issued by the coaches border
WP:QUOTEFARM
. You could try not to overuse them by trimming down a bit.
Removed one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~"In Australia, Basketball Australia CEO ..." - This could simply do without "In Australia".~~
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It was not to be." This sentence seems incomplete
It's fine. It's a common idiom. 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that. But this seems like a disconnect from the previous para. Also, the second quote (of the previous para is unattributed). —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it segued nicely. Kean says: "the plan is, next four years, Rio we go one more." And then we say: "It was no to be." This avoids a single sentence final paragraph, (and provides yet another irony). Unavoidably, the article ends on a jarring note. (Interestingly, everybody in London was talking about Rio, but no one is Rio was talking about Tokyo except the Japanese.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

Image and source reviews? Cheers, 11:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

The book(let?) in FN3 does not include location, but the unnumbered one at the end of the section does - should be consistent
FNs 21–23 look similar to me, but the titles vary in terms of content and format - is there a reason for that?
FN58 doesn't match the formatting of the other refs
Fn59 should use |publisher= rather than |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Media Guide was an A5 booklet. Designed to be easy to carry and lays flat when opened. Add the publication location. It was the last printed media guide; they are online now. So is London; linked.
There was some inconsistency - the pages did not have title cards in the HTML. I have corrected tjhis so all the pages have consistent names. For each one there was a main page, a statistics page, and a play by play page. Unfortunately, archive.org did not correctly archive all the pages. Checked them all, and used archive.is to replace the three faulty ones.
FN 58 had a typo - fixed
FRN 59 - fixed.

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Vensatry do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from supporting the candidate as my knowledge about the topic is rather limited. But then, I feel the quotes could be trimmed down a bit. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to see a consensus for promotion. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed back one more quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.