Template:Did you know nominations/Sienna Green

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 DimensionalFusion talk 15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sienna Green

(

)

~~... that at 193 centimetres (6 ft 4 in) tall, Australian Olympic water polo player Sienna Green is the tallest person in her family?~~

Source: "at 6-4, she is the tallest person in her family"

Reviewed: National Hospital Service Reserve
Comment: Nominated on behalf of an IP editor who will (as usual) provide the QPQ.

5x expanded by Schwede66 (talk) and 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5DFC:4931:AA8F:8FB5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 155 past nominations.

Schwede 66 11:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

Update: QPQ now added (just so that it doesn't get overlooked). Schwede 66 23:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Any better hook than this? Being that tall isn't always uncommon depending on where you're from. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Pinging for possible additional hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't see a better hook than that. If we don't hear from 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5DFC:4931:AA8F:8FB5 within a few days, I suggest you close that. Schwede 66 00:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

With no response from the IP and Schwede66 being open to a closure, it unfortunately seems that the article is not a good fit for DYK at this time given the lack of hooky material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it some thought. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D919:443A:176C:AE5B (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been musing about the concern that "Being that tall isn't always uncommon depending on where you're from." So I thought I would check.

While I'm not sure what "uncommon" is meant to be in that comment, this site indicates that a 6' 4" woman in Australia would be in the "Extremely Tall 99.999 Percentile". (By way of comparison, our article (for what it is worth) suggests that the average Australian woman 18+ a dozen years ago was a foot or so shorter[1] (N.B. - it also indicates that Australian women are among the tallest 20% in the world).)

She's also 19. Of US women at that age (wrong country, but according to our article, US women are a bit taller than Australian women), that would put her in the 99.9% percentile.

Not that we need more. But the hook does not simply reflect her height - which does given the above appear to be very much uncommon. But points to the fact that she is the tallest in her family. Lmk if you want me to look for evidence that it is, in addition, not common for a 19 year old girl to be the tallest in her family. There are studies that touch on the issue of a child's height relating to the parents' height, as well as there being a marked sex difference in height with women tending to be shorter than men,[2] but I haven't taken the time to find the best one, as I suspect what I've detailed may perhaps suffice.

All-in-all, I think that the assumption that led to the hook being rejected isn't in line with the evidence. Many thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that simply being the tallest in one's family is not by itself a hooky fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is not. But that ignores your original complaint above - which is what I've addressed directly above. You wrote: "Being that tall isn't always uncommon". I tend to think that being in the 99.999 percentile might, just perhaps, qualify as uncommon.

And, of course, the hook speaks to that fact, as well as the fact that she is the tallest in her family... it's clearly not, as you now suggest, only about her being the tallest in her family. I'm a but confused by your most recent comment. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A13D:8F1E:26A2:8F66 (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User:Narutolovehinata5.2603:7000:2101:AA00:571:B2E5:C31C:BA89 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think a "tallest person in her family" angle regardless of context is the best option here unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Up above, you gave as your rationale: "Being that tall isn't always uncommon ..." I've shown that to be untrue. As being in the in the 99.999 percentile is in fact uncommon. And on top of that - making the uncommonness even greater -- it is a girl who is the tallest in her family. Your response now - which remains the same even though your rationale was shown to not reflect reality - strikes me as perhaps a bit of IDONTLIKEIT. I wonder if perhaps we could call in another editor for their view? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:571:B2E5:C31C:BA89 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not based on IDONTLIKE it; rather, it is based on WP:DYKINT. Being the tallest in one's family may be a conversation starter, but it's not really hooky in the grand scheme of things, at least for Wikipedia purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks for pointing to DYKINT. Because as DYKINT clearly states: "The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." This fits. It's so unusual in fact - contrary to your initial incorrect assertion, which was the basis for your denial at the top of the page -- that fewer than 99.999% do not fit into her category. That's extraordinarily unusual, by any measure. Both because your reason for rejection at the top of the page is without basis, and because DYKINT calls for a hook that is likelyt to be perceived as unusual which this woman clearly is, can you please invite another editor to review this? Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:571:B2E5:C31C:BA89 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggested althooks:
ALT1: ...that Sienna Green, her brother, mother, and father have all competitively played water polo?
ALT2: ...that Sienna Green began playing water polo because she saw it as a combination of basketball and swimming, her favourite sports?
Sienna Green might be a very leggy woman but I think it's best to focus on the sport she plays. Bremps... 06:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 would actually be a better option than the height angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever hook the consensus supports. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7C63:6AF8:15B6:1F0C (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This still needs a full review. Owing to the problems with the original hook I've struck it, leaving ALT1 and ALT2 for consideration. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair Naruto -- I believe that the above discussion demonstrates that the problem suggested with the original hook was shown not to be fact-based, but rather based on the mistaken belief that "Being that tall isn't always uncommon." While the truth was demonstrated to be very much the opposite. But let's let the reviewer consider all three hooks and come to their view, rather than delete one that was shown to be baseless. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:51DF:B834:1672:242A (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

On mobile, so I'm eyeballing a few things, such as expansion.

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔

Earwig is mostly clean with 24.2% (no search engine). Approving my own ALT2 hook as cited and interesting (assuming the statistic provided by the nominator is correct, there are still 13,000 such Australian women). This site says 1,421 words, which should exceed 1,500 characters. Nominated soon after a 5X expansion. Pass.

Bremps... 05:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bremps: As you were the one who proposed ALT2, you should not have approved the hook. Hook proposers are not allowed to approve their own hooks unless they are minor rewords of existing hooks. Also pinging DimensionalFusion so that they are aware of this rule. In any case, I'm doing a third-party review of the hook, and it's verified in the source and probably the most interesting hook among those proposed (I understand the IP's preference for ALT0, but the combination hook is likely to get more attention, while ALT1 while also arguably meeting WP:DYKINT is not as unusual or intriguing as ALT2.) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)