Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Gayl King

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Gayl King

Created by MWright96 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC).

  • Currently doing a verifiable/neutrality review for this. For the criteria article was nominated a day after creation, well over 1,500 characters, Earwig gives 2.0% for copyvio (highly unlikely) and QPQ was provided. While the hook is cited, these citations don't specify it was the 2001 edition. I suggest swapping one of the sources to indicate this, as it started in 2000 and continued onwards in 2001. If I have any more comments in regards to verifibility/neutrality, I'll write under this comment. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Verification issues:

  • Google preview has various issues with the Canadian Dart Tournaments books. Even checking with UK/Canada, the preview:
    • doesn't confirm the name of the 1999 tournament that she won pairs and cricket pairs with Laurie Court was the Saskatoon Open. It only lists the winners.
    • doesn't have her 1999 Manitoba Open wins.
    • skips the doubles win at the 2000 London Open (only has singles)
    • might skip the doubles win at the 2000 Saskatchewan Open - (I see she won a doubles event with Kristin Hanson in 2000 but not sure if it's Saskatchewan).
I see you wiped all of this. You didn't have to. I know GBooks can be a pain. But in any sense.checkY

In terms of prose:

  • "In November 2000, after a play-off round of eight women players was cancelled," - Almost. The tournament was cancelled in 1999, and the Times doesn't suggest it was a play-off round. The wording currently suggests a 2000 tournament wsa cancelled, not 1999.checkY
    • It's fine now, but wordy (though not part of DYK). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "as part of the organization's attempt to modernise darts by allowing women to compete in its events" - kinda. Yes, they started allowing women into their events, but the Times doesn't suggest why.
    • I don't see a "vote" by the council.
  • Stoddard was 29th, not 32nd according to NY TimescheckY
  • I noticed you've added her Canadian Open wins in the infobox but they're not mentioned in the article. Same with Main Event Ladies.
    • Okay, almost all of it is verified except 2000 Ladies Canadian Open. Also, it'd be two times she won the Ladies Canadian Open after 2000.checkY --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see mention of her 1989 world masters appearance.checkY
  • Where did you get the Darts information in the infobox?
    • It came from a draft created by an IP in AFC. MWright96 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay but I don't see this verified. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Removed some of it because it cannot be verified. MWright96 (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)checkY


Close paraphrasing:

  • "sustained a shoulder injury and lost the endurance" - needs rewording as it's similar to the Darts World source.checkY

Neutrality:

  • "and the crowd positively received her play" - I don't think this part is needed as it's a bit promotional.checkY

Other issues that won't effect DYK but thought I should mention:

  • There are some grammatical issues in term of run-on sentences (Before the age of thirteencheckY, After a PDC World Dart,checkY)
  • Overcitation with King accepting the invitation.
Overall, the main issue is verificiation. While some of it might be GBooks preview issues, there are some prose tweaks that are required. I also am not sure with some of the information provided in the infobox as it's not mentioned in the article. For minor issues, there is an instance of close paraphrasing and not neutral statement that'd need to be fixed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)