Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

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]

Lead image missing caption
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Brisbane logo looks amateurish, I get it's to avoid copyright issues but surely just use c:File:Brisbane AFLW icon.png or similar
Y Replaced with c:File:Brisbane AFLW icon.png
Brisbane had taken advantage of a strong pipeline for women AFL players in that state unclear, awkward and too close to the source
Y Changed wording to make the point clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but had been repeatedly raided for players for expansion teams talking about "raiding" and "expansion teams" makes no sense without AFLW background knowledge
Y Added some background. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2023 AFL Women's season minor problem but don't need "AFL Women's" after first reference, this happens a few times through the article
Y Added piped links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Brisbane Lions embarked on an intense pre-season training regime that included a 20-kilometre trail hike carrying 14 full metal jerry cans between them I get this turns out to be important later in the article but it reads like a weird amount of emphasis to put on a single event, surely pre-season information can be fleshed out a bit.
Y Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general the background section needs expansion – more information about the clubs' seasons, finals journey, pre-match expectations.
I was trying to keep the Background as focused as possible
I understand there's a trade-off involved, just see what you can do. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still too short, particularly on North Melbourne. – Teratix ₵ 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By virtue of North Melbourne defeating Adelaide in the Preliminary Final, the Grand Final was held at Princes Park makes no sense unless you know Princes Park = Ikon Park, that North Melbourne's home ground is Princes Park, and the rules for how hosting priority is decided (after all, Brisbane also won a preliminary final – why didn't they host, a reader might ask).
Y Added that Princes Park is North Melbourne's home ground is Princes Park. I have used "Princes Park" consistently, but noted the Ikon Park naming. I believe there was a decision on Wikipedia to use the customary names and not the naming rights names (which often do not last very long) but am unable to find the relevant RfC, assuming there was one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is the current consensus is to use whatever the ground's name was at the time – see Talk:2011 AFL season#Sponsored Venues and Talk:2020 AFL season#Stadium Sponsor Names. – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y Okay. Used "Ikon Park" consistently. I note in passing that the sources do not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was disappointment that the larger Docklands Stadium could not be used Who was disappointed?

Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entertainment and media coverage parts are presently too short to warrant their own section headers.
Y Merged these sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
despite injury concerns around some Brisbane players but then you only list one player
Y Changed to refer to Davidson only. My apologies for drifting into OR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A jerry can was displayed only makes sense if you have the context provided in the source
The context is provided above in the Background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hike is mentioned but its connection to the matchday jerry can is unstated. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y Added a little bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North Melbourne's Emma Kearney, Jenna Bruton and Kim Rennie had won a premiership with the Western Bulldogs in 2018 Grand Final, a match in which Tahlia Randall had played for Brisbane this is a jarring sentence which gives the impression Randall is playing for the opposite team!
Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs work – maybe split into two or rewrite? – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nesting the team templates in tables looks really hacky (compare to 2023 AFL Grand Final), surely there's a better way.
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to say about the umpires?
Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TV broadcast sections in the infobox and scoreboard contradict each other
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd to see extensive ABC coverage [1] [2] [3] go unused. ESPN also has quite a bit.
Jasmine Garner and Taylah Gatt celebrate who is who?
Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brisbane won the coin toss. significance of this unclear without AFLW background
Y This proved difficult. I have added an explanation, which I had to reference from the game rules. Aside: my father captained an AFL team for several years and never lost a coin toss. He would often point out that in the 21st century it has become a sham, with the winner of the toss invariably electing to kick to the end their team is already warming up at. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite a streak! – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Match summary is plagued by editorialisation: key figure, one of the fittest teams in the competition, an improbable goal, brilliant work, perhaps due to her knee injury, clearly had not fully healed, who had been a lion in defence in more ways than one, put the result beyond doubt etc etc. (list not exhaustive)
This does not meet our Wikipedia definition of MOS:EDITORIAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean editorialisation in the MOS:EDITORIAL sense, just the plain sense of "expressing opinions when plain discussion of the facts is called for". – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Text: "This was a major blow, as Bruton had been a key figure in the preliminary final win against Adelaide".

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?

Seems relevant to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It was six years ago at the time of the game. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having described North Melbourne as an expansion team, I wanted to emphasise the experience of some of the players. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really read that way, it just reads as an unrelated fact about Garner. – Teratix ₵ 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About half of BOG section is not related to BOG

Y Split premiership cup off into its own section
The section is titled "premiership cup" but you don't actually mention the cup until the end. And it's a bit short for its own section – I was more envisioning some sort of retitling or subsection rather than an outright split.
It was the third for coach Craig Starcevich second?
2021 and 2023 (AFLW) and 1990 (AFL)
It's a bit confusing to sum playing and coaching premierships, especially from different leagues. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Garner BOG total votes and sum of individual votes don't match
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No post-match section?
Never had one before. What should it say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis, reactions and reflections on the game from players, coaches, media and so on. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given copyright concerns have already been raised on the talk page and I've already seen a couple of phrases I would consider too close to the original source, I'm going to check for copyright problems more thoroughly in the morning.
Overall this seems quite a way short of GA status, would need extensive work for 1a) understandable to broad audience 1b) layout, words to watch 3a) addresses main aspects, 4) neutrality, along with minor work on 1a) clarity and 6b) captions.
There's always arguments about what "understandable to broad audience" means. See Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give a special mention to my favourite typo I've seen on Wikipedia so far: Kate Shierlaw took a spectacular mark in front of gaol
Y Heh. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, good to see progress here, I've left a few follow-up comments. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left a few more replies. – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I've followed up again. – Teratix ₵ 11:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: not sure where you're at with this nomination? If it helps, the major issues to be resolved before a promotion would be neutrality in the match description and the depth of information on the background and aftermath. – Teratix ₵ 01:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement at the GA level for depth of information. WP:GACR: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. I see no evidence that the article is non-neutral ie favouring one side over the other. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:18, 26 February 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.