Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Collyer
- 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 Allen3 talk 15:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sarah Collyer
[edit]- ... that Sarah Collyer was expelled from the England women's cricket team for taking "an unauthorised holiday"?
- Reviewed: Simnia spelta
5x expanded by Harrias (talk). Self nominated at 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
- I had a look at this article to review earlier and thought some parts of the article, especially the hook, maybe focussed unduly on the negatives? I was going to have another look later but User:Vensatry beat me to it, ツStacey (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Staceydolxx:, for the article itself, it is simply a summary of the key points of her cricketing career: in international terms it wasn't a particularly glittering one, and there is little to no coverage of domestic women's cricket from this era, which is where she would have had more success. With regards to the hook, I simply chose the most interesting point from the article. There are clearly more positive things that could have been selected, but I can't see that any of them are particularly interesting. Personally I don't think this contravenes rule 4, but if you disagree, I would suggest placing a "?no" tag on the nomination, and we can work on it. Harrias talk 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Staceydolxx: I don't think the hook violates WP:NPOV. It isn't a subjective claim, but a fact that's been widely reported. —Vensatry (ping) 18:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have made a couple of edits to the article as I felt it to be unfairly negative (mentioning things she didn't achieve) though I would believe that the sources contained this information. I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything else of particular interest in the article so without offering an alternative, I think the hook should go ahead. I feel better now the article seems less negative. ツStacey (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)