Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalie Nakase

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 13:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Natalie Nakase

[edit]
(
)

Created by Muboshgu (talk), Bagumba (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough, long enough, and uses extensive in-line citations. Hook is short enough and interesting enough. The hook fact is supported by in-line citations to reliable sources -- although the NYT and Yahoo to hedge a bit by saying she is the first "according to the Clippers" rather than providing independent verification. QPQ needs to be completed before this can be passed. Other review elements pending. Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That was a quicker review than I expected. QPQ provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (EC) Article is new enough, long enough, and uses extensive in-line citations. Spot-checking doesn't reveal any problems with unduly close paraphrasing, copyright violation, or plagiarism. Hook is short enough and interesting enough. QPQ has now been completed. However, after looking more carefully at this, I have two concerns about the hook's accuracy:
(1) The hook fact is supported by in-line citation to a release (fn. 5) on the web site of the Los Angeles Clippers -- an organization that has been under attack recently over highly-publicized racism issues and has a natural incentive to tout, perhaps exaggerate, its own diversity gains. The two independent sources (The New York Times and Yahoo Sports) both hedge by saying Nakase is the first "according to the Clippers" rather than providing independent verification. If there were an independent source that verified her status as the first, that would help a lot.
(2) The hook suggests that Nakase is a full-fledged NBA assistant coach, but her appointment is, so far at least, limited to a two-week period of the NBA Summer League (not regular season). Since teams use both bench players, rookies and unsigned players, the Summer League is very different than actual NBA play.
It's a hooky fact, and I don't want to be overly nit-picky, so I invite Muboshgu and/or Bagumba to respond here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK is notorious for hooks that are liberally stated, presumably to add to the "hookiness". Also, I don't see the sources as "hedging", but rather giving credit to the origin of the claim. It is common for reliable sources to provide attribution. If the statements were dubious, a reliable source would normally not repeat it, or would offer a counter statement if it was contested. That said, I can understand resistance to any statement remotely related to Donald Sterling these days. I've provided alternate hooks below if you are still not comfortable with the original.—Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is perfectly good and suitable for DYK. I just worry about placing a hook on the Main Page that is sourced ultimately to Donald Sterling's LA Clippers. The proposed alt hooks are both fine, but a lot less hookier. How about something that attributes the fact accurately, something like the following alt 3. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is "NBA Media Ventures" not independent of the NBA? I know when writing baseball articles that MLB Advanced Media reporters are not subject to approval by MLB. It might be different here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: MLB.com, unless their paychecks are paid by an employer solely independent of MLB (highly unlikely), I would think annual performance reviews and raises influence a writer even if individual articles don't require approval.—Bagumba (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a journalist, but even I know that's not ethical. According to our own wiki articles, MLB Advanced Media has editorial independence, which should mean performance reviews shouldn't be subject to anything like that. I have to imagine NBA.com is similar. This isn't Fox News we're talking about here. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Both the original hook and ALT3 above seem to me incorrect or misleading, as mentioned previously: "(2) The hook suggests that Nakase is a full-fledged NBA assistant coach, but her appointment is, so far at least, limited to a two-week period of the NBA Summer League (not regular season)." Also, "is being touted" in ALT3 has a negative connotation, suggesting she is being over-aggressively advertised or promoted (and may not live up to the hype...). I've taken the liberty of striking both of those, but I would support either ALT1 (supported by the New York Times article) or ALT2 which is clearly supported by the Newsday article.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to increase the choices, I'll throw in another possible hook fact: with any of ALT1, ALT2, or ALT4, the article is, I think, good to go.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT4... that basketball coach Natalie Nakase was one of 15 women of Asian or Pacific Island heritage honored at the White House in 2013 as a Champion of Change? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Natalie_Nakase&oldid=618675619"