Talk:2022 AFL Women's season 7

Doubleheader attendance is misleading

The match results for Friday, 2 September (5:00 pm) Melbourne vs North Melbourne at the Melbourne Cricket Ground quotes an official crowd of 17,851. This is misleading as it was a double header event. This is also mentioned as the highest crowd in the infobox, whereas clearly it is an AFL crowd, not an AFLW crowd.The reader only finds this out in the notes below, however there should be a very clear footnote that unlike the other matches of the round this is not a standalone crowd. Because the match would otherwise not have been held at the MCG. Rulesfan (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

All three sources that we're using in the article gave the separate crowd figure for the match, and we go by what reliable sources tell us. The fact that the match was rescheduled as a doubleheader is also mentioned in the prose. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It is standard practice among sports articles to clearly indicate doubleheaders and not to count them as official crowd figures. The source you've used, are all AFLW site, which is not an independent source, and therefore too close to the subject. It is in their interest to bump up their reported crowd figures. See other leagues, such as the 2022 NRL Women's season and 2021–22 FA WSL as to how doubleheaders are treated - with healthy skepticism. --Rulesfan (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you've missed mine. By all three sources, that's womens.afl (which, as discussed at a recent FAC and contrary to your opinion, is independent), Austadiums and Australian Football, and all three have listed the same, separate crowd figure. If those sources decided to use the AFL qualifying final crowd and call that the official doubleheader attendance, that's what we would use, but they've all produced a different figure, so that's what we're using; I'm not going to speculate. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless it is a proper footnote, it is completely misleading! Austadiums and Australian Football are simply re-citing the AFLW's figures. Read their disclaimers if you have any doubt. At least Austadiums clearly indicates that the crowd is a double-header. Perhaps you'd care to explain to the reader that those people were there with AFLW tickets and not AFL tickets? The reference you've cited (https://www.womens.afl/news/99597/dees-roos-clash-moved-to-mcg-for-massive-double-header) appears to indicate otherwise:

In order to access the AFLW game, tickets to the Melbourne-Sydney men's final will need to be purchased.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is a ticketed AFL match, and not a ticketed AFLW match like all the others listed and should be clearly indicated as such! Please explain how they counted the attendance without AFLW tickets? Or was it simply a headcount of people who arrived prior to the start of the men's game ??? --Rulesfan (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter how the tickets are described? The question in the end is "how many people watched the game" --SuperJew (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, you're entitled to your opinion, Rulesfan, but you've once again demonstrated your inability to use what's actually in the source (when editing the article, that is, because you've shown that you're more than capable of copy-pasting from the source here), despite my instructions to you a few edits ago, and I've also said previously that I'm not going to speculate. I have no problem with adding that tickets needed to be purchased for the men's final to access the AFLW match, as that's directly from the source cited, but "This was a ticketed AFL event (Men's qualifying final) and not a ticketed AFLW event" isn't in the source and therefore won't be added. You're drawing your own conclusions rather than following and properly utilising information from the sources, and you need to let the issue go. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I will not let it go because this is NO REASON to THREATEN TO BAN ME simply for trying to keep Wikipedia truthful instead of your propaganda piece for your AFLW! I go to games and I know what is a curtain-raiser and what is a AFLW ticketed game! You can bleat all you like about how many people were there or how crowd was counted but if they've paid AFL finals tickets before then they don't need to speculate to conclude that 17,000 people didn't pay AFL finals prices to watch the AFLW match!!!

Personally I think this puts the issue BEYOND DOUBT>

https://www.zerohanger.com/dees-roos-date-destined-for-gs-bright-lights-126271/

Roos and Dees fans will be asked to pay AFL Finals prices for a ticket to the clash.

Perhaps you could consider using independent sources instead of just AFLW sources.

--Rulesfan (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

My two cents: Rulesfan is right to challenge how this crowd figure is portrayed. It's self-evident that curtain-raiser crowd numbers are not very meaningful because the crowd filters in gradually, and some proportion don't see more than a few minutes of play. Does anyone actually know the method by which this official crowd figure was calculated – if it's based on a progressive number of turnstile clicks when the final siren sounded (which is my guess), then it's a pretty pointless number. In any case, I believe it warrants some level of disclaimer/qualification, and my approach has always been to append the letters C-R to any curtain raiser crowd (see 1985_VFA_season#Finals_2 for example), as an easy way to tell readers that while the number they're reading is based an official count, the majority of that crowd was not present for the whole game. That is what I'd recommend doing here.

With regard to the 'highest attendance' box, the appropriate thing to do is just put the highest official crowd without disclaimer. Infoboxes are by design intended to be simple and stand-alone, and they are not the place to go through detailed disclaiming of statistics.

One more point: sometimes we need to take a more encyclopedically precise approach to the terminology we use than the sources we reference. I take issue with the term 'doubleheader' being thrown around very liberally in media, and being used here; there is a clear difference between a genuine double-header (two headline acts of equal standing) and a curtain-raiser/headliner pairing – this match, by virtue of this being a ticketed AFL Men's final, is clearly the latter. Aspirex (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aspirex, I understand where you're coming from, but I still think a note directly below the round is fairly sufficient given we don't know things like how this crowd number was calculated, nor whether it was an AFL-ticketed event only or if purchasing an AFL ticket opened up access to AFLW tickets; I don't think we should take action based on our best guess. I want this article to reach featured article status, if possible, and am trying to maintain that level of quality as the article builds, which is why I've been labouring the point – with Rulesfan, more than I think we should have to, and I'm sure you can understand my frustration – about referencing/being true to the sources and refraining from speculation; as a result, I don't feel overly comfortable with changing the terminology either, just because it may appear as more of a curtain-raiser to some. If any more information comes to hand and/or this comes up in a potential GA or FAC discussion, I'd be more than happy to discuss further, but I think the current version works best based on the information that we have. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of references which say 'curtain raiser' rather than 'double header', [1] [2] [3], so verifiability isn't an issue for any future article quality review. I'd be comfortable leaving the crowd figure unannotated, but changing double-header to curtain raiser in the gamenote. Aspirex (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, then – I've changed the wording in the prose in a way that doesn't contradict the original source covering the whole fixture (which was my main concern, not just finding a source that used the term "curtain raiser" for the match in question, as I couldn't find one for the fixture using the term), added the Zero Hanger source and changed to "curtain raiser". My point was that I didn't think we should change the terminology just because it seemed like a more accurate representation of a single match without adding/changing sources, but that's fine now. I don't think there's anything more that can be done regarding the crowd figure, so hopefully this puts the issue to bed. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Win/Loss Table

May I ask why the win loss table is not consistent with other AFLW and AFLM articles? RoryK8 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Likewise with the ladder progression when a perfectly good format is used in the AFLM articles, it's a bit jarring. Specifically the blue colour. RoryK8 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

RoryK8, I'm trying to improve several aspects of these season articles, such as structure, formatting, consistency, tidying up, etc., and am using this article to try these changes before making them uniform across all of the relevant articles. I would argue that a lot of the tables that appear in these articles use outdated and, at times, unnecessary formats (e.g. ranking at the end of the win/loss table, decreasing the size of other tables) and were in need of change; tweaking the finals bracket, for example, was a necessary change. With the win/loss table specifically, rather than a ranking at the end of the table which includes the finishing position after finals (unnecessary extra detail), splitting the table into H/A and finals (like I had done with the "premiership season" section) and including the ladder in between better mirrors the season structure, and then highlighting the qualifying teams in green to match the ladder necessitated changing some of the other colours. I changed to a lighter blue to better contrast with some of these colours and then made it uniform across the other tables. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Normally the lead is a summary of the article, and therefore requires no reference, but the lead here contains information that is not in the article, and therefore requires reference. (I would move it into Background and supply a new lead.)

 Done – rather than drastically change the lead, I resupplied the relevant information in the background section and trimmed the lead section down, adding sources where appropriate. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Source required for "Win/loss table"

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Was there a season logo for the infobox?

As far as I've been able to find, the only logo that was used for the season is the AFLW/NAB logo (like for the grand final) – wasn't sure if that would work, but I could be wrong. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Anything about the tV broadcasts?

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• You mentioned the CBA. Any idea what the players are paid or what the salary caps are?

 Done – player payments, yes, but not salary caps. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• "this season's iteration also celebrated allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport" but the AFL's performance lagged a bit; they didn't let T players play. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't (yet) been able to find any sources to back that last claim up. When the AFL blocked Hannah Mouncey from playing AFLW in 2018, they didn't rule her or other transgender athletes from playing AFLW in the future, and I haven't read anything sbout that changing; as a result, is it relevant? The point is about the season's Pride Round celebrating allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport (which could mean allies of LGBTQI+ people within the sport or allies [...] within the sport, though it wasn't super clear). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I just thought it was a bit too upbeat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No other issues.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No spelling or grammatical errors found

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See comments above

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   See comments above

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One image, appropriately licensed. More images would be nice.

 Done 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

On hold pending resolution of issues.

Finished addressing your initial feedback, Hawkeye7 – let me know if you have more feedback/comments; thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pre-FA review

Tagging Casliber, Sportsfan77777 and Teratix – would you guys (and/or others) potentially be interested in another pre-FA review? Thought I'd reach out given you guys and Hawkeye7 were the ones who helped out last time, for Daisy Pearce. As above, there's also a discussion happening at WikiProject level regarding the sequencing of sections in Australian rules football season articles – which affects this article – so would be keen to get your thoughts there as well, if interested; thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to construct a section on teh course of the season - i.e. who were favourites initially and who led the table at various times - teams with runs of wins/losses/slumps etc.? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the same thing as Casliber. I couldn't find any example FAs for a season article of an entire league (or even GAs really), but there have been a lot of FA season articles for teams (for instance, see 2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season or any of the other Gillingham season articles by ChrisTheDude). Some things would be different of course, but some things would still be similar. At present, the article seems structured more like a list than an article. I'm not sure which it should be because for the regular non-GA/FA season articles, people are usually more responsible at filling in the stats than they are at filling in the prose (take 2018 AFL season as a random example, but really almost any season would be an example of that, even in other sports). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey guys – thanks for jumping on. There's an idea – it might take me a little bit to construct it properly, as it's pretty new territory (all of this is, as you alluded to, Sportsfan77777), but I'll have a dig for some sources and try and put something together; I might only be able to do a slight re-jigging/extension of the background section at best depending on what information/sources I can gather. But yeah, I've definitely observed that editors are much more interested in filling in statistics over prose regardless of sport as well – obviously they're also much easier to dig up anytime than it is to find information for the prose one, two, three years later, and it's for that very reason that I tried to have as much of the prose filled out as possible during the season/as the information became available, so that there wasn't as much to try and dig up afterwards. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

A little late on this one but I'll have a look – Teratix ₵ 03:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)