Talk:2022 AFL Women's season 7 Grand Final

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)
Daisy Pearce
Daisy Pearce

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk), GreatestTitan (talk), Storm machine (talk), and Sportzy (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 22:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is ready. Everything is reliably cited. The image is free use. SL93 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AFL Grand Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:AFL Women's season seven Grand Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification

  • I don't think there's any need for the Finals series bracket, as this is already featured in the main article AFL Women's season seven. Especially considering it includes the Grand Final, it is very oddly placed at the beginning of this article.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some weight issues here. The second paragraph gives a lot of attention to the Demons, but only a single sentence to the Lions. More detail about Brisbane's progress should be added.
  • "It was also the first AFLW grand final to be played in November." Why is this notable?
    The women's game being moved to a different time of year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, would be good to mention that then I think, especially considering it factors in later in the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venue

  • Words to watch: Remove "however,"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why weren't The Gabba and Metricon Stadium available? It doesn't say why.
    • Spotcheck: Cited source doesn't say why.
      checkY It does. Added to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited source and the main article itself refer to "Brighton Homes Arena" as "Springfield Central Stadium". This should probably be used instead.
    The cited source refers to it as "Brighton Homes Arena" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this controversy lead anywhere? The way it's written, it reads odd to just end with the alternative suggestion and not how they pressed forward with the decision to use Brighton Homes.
    The game was held at Brighton Homes Arena. May be a change for next season. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led to many suggesting Marvel Stadium"
    • Spotcheck: Cited source doesn't say "many", it specifies that it's Tom Elliott saying this. It's misleading to suggest it was a lot of people when only one person was quoted as saying this.
      • checkY There was more than just him, but hewing to the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the single sentence paragraph to the end of the previous paragraph.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast and entertainment

  • Second and third paragraphs could probably be merged together. Single line paragraphs look a bit odd.
    checkY Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider integrating this and the above sections into subsections of a broader "Background" section.
    Following the pro forma used for other events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

  • Emergencies should probably be integrated into the tables, they look a bit odd just sitting there below the tables.
    Possibly, but it's a template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite the source in the title of the tables, rather than having "Source:[15]" at the bottom.
    checkY I've always done it that way, but sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umpires

Match summary

  • Comment: "The match commenced in 30 °C heat" Wow. I do not envy these women playing in that kind of heat. I find it difficult to even think when it gets over 28.
    Well it's 40 °C here in Dubai. Fortunately, the athletes are playing in air conditioned venues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work with providing links for the specialist terminology, it really helps for context. Is there a link you could provide for "major"?
    checkY Can do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is very nicely structured, with a paragraph for each of the quarters.
    I laid it out this way before writing it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melbourne broke loose [...]" This is quite a long run-on sentence, consider breaking it up a wee bit.
    checkY Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melbourne's Tahlia Gillard managed to keep the Lions' tall forward Jesse Wardlaw quiet" What does "quiet" mean here?
    checkY Tried to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The umpires injected a note of farce into the game" This reads a bit editorialised, consider rewriting.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "therefore" no need for this, cut.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scoreboard

  • No notes

Best on ground medal

  • No notes

Lead and infobox

  • Lead is rather short, could you add to it a little? One or two more sentences should be fine.

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Well-written and easily understandable to someone that isn't familiar with the sport. Links to specialist terminology really help.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A few words to watch have been highlighted above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Some of the references are incomplete. I've noted examples of the author not being cited (e.g. [3] foxsports) and others of the dates not being cited. Please make sure all references are complete.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    One noted case of an attributable statement being vaguely cited to "many people". This needs fixing.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig only notes that the umpires section is lifted closely from its cited source. This can be fixed by converting it to a table, per the suggestion.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    There's a couple moments of editorialising, but nothing major, or outside the bounds of how this sport is written about. More weight should be given to the Lions in the qualifications section though.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable since January 2023.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Logo falls under non-free use. Rest of the photographs are original works shared under the Creative Commons license.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Alt text should be provided for each of the images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    There's a few things that need to be addressed before this can be passed, but they're not major issues and should be easily dealt with. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Thanks for getting back so swiftly and thoroughly! I will pass this now. Excellent work on this article, it's convinced me that I should give AFL more of a watch this year. :D --Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_AFL_Women%27s_season_7_Grand_Final&oldid=1196903598"