Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/2023 AFL Women's Grand Final

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

DYK toolbox

2023 AFL Women's Grand Final

(
)
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.

  • Given that the Brisbane Lions may not be that well-known outside of Australia, I've taken the liberty of adding "Brisbane" to the hook. Leaving the review to another reviewer, although I'd like to see more hooks proposed here as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • During the game an image of a jerry can was held up, and they carried one onto the ground at the conclusion of the match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that all 13,000 tickets for the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final were sold the day they became available? Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
    reviewer needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • gonna say no, not an interestingness pass. The hook is neat, but it's not particularly unusual for a sports game or other extremely popular venue event. It's also not particularly intriguing: I don't read the hook and have any follow-up questions about what it's telling me. There's not really a reason for me to click through. As this nomination has taken multiple tries and nearly two months to come up with an interesting hook and come up short, I'm gonna have to mark this one for closure. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
I don't see anything wrong with ALT1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
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)
checkY It is done. (Rev 21:6) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2023_AFL_Women%27s_Grand_Final&oldid=1201906747"