Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball and the Olympic Movement/1

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.

Netball and the Olympic Movement[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept as a GA, improvements were made to the article, no further issues are current with the article and currently meets the GA criteria. Bidgee (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered doing an individual reassessment, but given the background to the netball articles and my involvement in the parent one thought it would be better going through the community. For those that might not be aware this article was originally reviewed (and failed) by Racepacket (talk · contribs), before being passed by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) (reviews here and here). A similar thing happened at the main Netball article (see the article history) and these articles were arguably a catalyst for an arb case involving racepacket and his eventually year then indefinite block. There is some good evidence to suggest that Racepacket is still commenting on these articles as an IP. However despite this I think the good article status of this article needs to be reassessed.

My main concern is that this comes across more as an essay than an encyclopaedic article. Some of the information is misleading. It fails the neutrality criteria and the no original research criteria.

Title - Not necessarily part of the criteria, but it sounds more like a title to an essay than an encyclopaedic article. The title is not very descriptive, it is just connecting two entities (the Olympic movement and netball) to each other, which although expanded on in the text is not going t be obvious to most casual readers. Encylcopaedia titles should simply describe what the article is about. I would suggest something like "Olympic recognition of Netball".
- The title represents a broad consensus of the Olympic Task Force. A number of suggestions were made, considered and debated. This was chosen as being descriptive and neutral. Change will require a similar broad consensus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this? AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere around there. The point is that "Olympic recognition of Netball" has a rather specific technical meaning, and it was felt that it did not adequately describe the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports. I really feel a statement like this should be attributed. It doesn't help that the source is 30 years old either.
- I don't understand the edit summary for this revert [1] AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither do I (sorry, I didn't look at this page and didn't realize it was a concern here, so I started a discussion on the talkpage, put did not get input there), nor do I think that source could be sufficient for such a general statement. L.tak (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The statement is sourced. The source supports the statement. Since you have read it too, what concern could you have? Moreover, several of the other sources also support the statement too. Anyhow, I have added a 2012 source to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I meant this statement: "Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports", which so broad and general that a single and very old source simply doesn't do... Where did you add a source from 2012 there? L.tak (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph in the body reads like it is trying to make a point. It shouldn't really do that, present the facts and let the reader decide for themselves. The trouble with the examples as presented is that they seem a bit cherry picked. The section is titled "Womens sport at the Olympics" so it should give background about that. It would be better saying when the first women competed, what they competed in and then maybe some comparisons instead of launching straight into the exclusions.
- Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the note at the end of the paragraph contradicts the last sentence (equestrian is a team sport [2] not to mention that mixed doubles in tennis are included now). The mixed teams seems a bit irrelevant in any case. I seriously doubt that mixed netball is going to make it to the Olympics, which is what this seems to be implying.

- No, that is not what it is saying. The requirement is for a sport to be played by both men and women. The issue was whether mixed sport counted. Equestrian is not a team sport; see below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does that sentence tie in with the rest of the paragraph? Also it highlights the problem of using an old source without mentioning the date as that sentence is now incorrect. AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The team sports are football, water polo, hockey, basketball, volleyball and handball. The subtle difference is between team sports and team events. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the next paragraph is wrong for an encyclopaedia too. What does the issues facing netball are part of a larger problem involving female participation in the Olympics. mean? Starting sentences with Even at the 2000 Summer Olympics suggests we are arguing a point rather than objectively presenting information. Boxing will have to be updated now too. The inclusion of rugby and golf as presented here makes it seem like it they were chosen because the were primarily played by men, which would need a source. Similarly with the last sentence, it reads like the IOC is saying the quote, when in fact it is Andrew Wu.
- Y Updated to add boxing, and re-worded to address concerns. I did discover that "Even at" was to avoid multiple consecutive sentences starting with the same words. Re-worded to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
paragraph 3 - Uses "for example" and "is illustrated by" again suggestive of making a point.
- Y Removed the former. The latter seems okay. I cannot see the importance of being on the Olympic programme as being controversial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[3] is not a reliable source for the last sentence.
- Y Replaced. See below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop there for now. AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the GAR rules, the objective of a GAR is purely to address any problems an article may have. All criticism must be in the form of actionable points, and I will making the required corrections as we go. Be polite. Be concise. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply raise one point: "no original research criteria" since this is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy, this is a most serious allegation to make. It should be promptly backed up with clearly-defined cites from the article which are not backed by any of the cited sources, or the allegation should be withdrawn and an apology issued. FYI I know exactly what Original Research is, I've done plenty of it – just not for Wikipedia.

Using this "card" brings into question whether or not the demand for a review has been raised in good faith. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at ya. If it was a bad faith nom I would not have put it through the community review process and gone for an individual one instead. Wikipedia has it's own definiftion of original research and it includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." I detailed instances above where the article makes assumptions that are not supported by the references. For an example see the sentence That netball is played mostly by women is also seen as problematic as the IOC is looking for greater gender balance "netball being a female-dominated sport could be a hindrance." where the quote is written (possibly unintentionally) like it is coming from the IOC when it is not. For what its worth I thought that claiming it wasn't neutral was a more serious allegation, but each to their own. AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can conclude that there is no evidence of OR. I am checking all the references. All seem fine so far... I know I often write things where people pick up an unintended meaning. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reference for rugby and golf being predominately played by male (and the implication that this is why they were chosen for the Olympics)?

How does this source support the "Olympic recognition plays an important part in getting sponsorship for local competitions around the world and providing new opportunities for females" sentence?

It is a site from a company that supports local competitions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that cite adequately supports that statement. Just to make sure I've understood it properly: the source cited is the website of a bank that is a sponsor of netball in South Africa that happens to mention that the sport has olympic recognition, right? Unless I'm being totally daft and missed something, trying to use that source to support the sentence it's being used to support is in fact original research. It's examining a primary source (the website of a sponsor,) and using the fact that the website mentions olympic recognition to try to make a general statement that olympic recognition is important to sponsors. That looks to me to be advancing a position not advanced by the sources.Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Replaced with a direct citation from a book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source saying Gordon Brown, Kelly Holmes and Denise Lewis are English supporters? AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cite "But netball has gained support from a number of high-profile backers including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, double Olympic gold medallist Dame Kelly Holmes and former Olympic heptathlon champion Denise Lewis." seems to cover it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can conclude that the way in which the above allegation of original research is worded is a grammatical and syntactical train-wreck; one which I cannot parse, and doubt anyone but the author stands any chance of understanding.

Incidentally, I'm well-aware of what Original Research is; it would be far simpler to define how Wikipedia interprets it as: inference of conclusions not mentioned in the cited sources. By definition, all contributions to Wikipedia are synthesis, unless you propose an encyclopedia full of plagiarism. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can conclude whatever you want. Others will come along and draw conclusions too and hopefully we can get a consensus. Since this is a community reassessment do you have an opinion on whether this article meets the WP:GACR? ~~Also do you have any evidence that this is a bad faith nomination?~~ AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Netball in Australia: A Social History", which is cited in the article several times, is a working paper. This is not ideal. Working papers haven't undergone peer review, and in many cases (including this one) the level of editorial control exercised over them is unclear. My reading of previous WP:RSN postings about working papers makes it look like they are generally not considered to be WP:RS unless exceptional evidence is presented that they should be considered RS, similar to how we treat masters' theses. If possible, information cited to this paper should be replaced with a better cite. (I don't think it's the biggest deal since most of the information is fairly basic, but thought it was worth mentioning.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Y I don't that is really the case in Australia, certainly not in MILHIST, but it wasn't much effort to remove it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after looking through the article, I believe that it meets all the Good Article criteria. Thine Antique Pen 22:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.