Talk:2023 AFL Women's 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Brisbane Lions players after being presented with the 2023 AFL Women's premiership cup

• ... that the Brisbane Lions (pictured) won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final? Source: https://www.afl.com.au/aflw/fixture?Competition=3&Season=61&Round=980#matchreport
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Fischer (politician)

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk) and Storm machine (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 AFL Women's Grand Final; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Given that the Brisbane Lions may not be that well-known outside of Australia, I've taken the liberty of adding "Brisbane" to the hook. Leaving the review to another reviewer, although I'd like to see more hooks proposed here as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Most citations are missing some bits of metadata (such as authorship and date). Would be helpful to readers if this was addressed.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - The result of the game is not interesting without context. If the Lions were a major underdog or otherwise unexpected, then this should be elaborated. Otherwise, a new hook is needed.

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - Not particularly clear or discernable at its size.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hook needs work. SounderBruce 08:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I reject the proposition that our DYK rules (or GA for that matter) demand citations include metadata such as authorship and date (other than access date). New review requested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the metadata issues (I do agree that we do not need metadata stuff since they're optional), we still need new hooks here. I've tried thinking up of some myself but so far I've come up empty (I don't think the "first time in Melbourne in several years" angle would be that catchy unless you're a big Aussie rules fan). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that prior to the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final, the pre-season training of the Brisbane Lions (pictured) included a 20-kilometre trail hike carrying 14 metal jerry cans?

Thanks to Tails Wx for proposing this over on Discord. @SounderBruce, Hawkeye7, and Storm machine: How does it sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. They carried a jerry can onto the oval at the conclusion of the game. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I got into touch with Sounder over Discord DMs and to cut a long story short he is requesting for another editor to take a look at his. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment (not a full re-review): "Hook needs work", as said above. How can a hike carry 14 jerry cans? Hikes do not have arms. They cannot carry cans. And why would a team have included a hike in the participants of their training? Surely they would limit it to team members. More serious than the confusing grammar is the confusing chronology. I don't see the connection between pre-season training and the final game. There is a whole season in between. The pre-season training is relevant to the season itself, obviously, but how is it relevant to this game? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• • • During the game an image of a jerry can was held up, and they carried one onto the ground at the conclusion of the match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that all 13,000 tickets for the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final were sold the day they became available? Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  reviewer needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  • gonna say no, not an interestingness pass. The hook is neat, but it's not particularly unusual for a sports game or other extremely popular venue event. It's also not particularly intriguing: I don't read the hook and have any follow-up questions about what it's telling me. There's not really a reason for me to click through. As this nomination has taken multiple tries and nearly two months to come up with an interesting hook and come up short, I'm gonna have to mark this one for closure. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That's very harsh. This is a well-written and well-presented article, and there is surely a viable hook in there somewhere. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with ALT1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, see David Eppstein's comment above; I agree with him that there is no reason for that tidbit to be included in the article at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final in spite of losing four key players from the previous year?
• ALT4: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final in spite of losing three All-Australians and the League's reigning best and fairest player from the previous year?
• ALT5: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final in spite of a high turnover of players over the previous four seasons? Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Why not simply ALT6: ... that a Brisbane Lions player said the sight of a jerrycan motivated her team during the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final? – Teratix ₵ 13:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• ALT7: ... that the Brisbane Lions won the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final despite losing a team's worth of players?--Launchballer 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In re ALTs 3–5 and 7: we ran a pretty similar hook for 2021 AFL Women's Grand Final and it flopped – the second-lowest image hook on the entire year. ALT6 might work, although I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that it'll attract much attention. We run these AFL finals hooks about once a year, and they never really do.
  • In re the general direction of DYK: Yes, it's harsh to say "no", especially to an experienced nominator (to your credit, Hawkeye7, this is very a well-done article). However, I think it's bad that we pretty much always let nominators (and well-meaning bystanders who wish to help) wriggle by the interestingness requirement by allowing them to throw an indefinite number of hooks at the wall until just one reviewer is willing to say "yes". That soft power has rendered the interestingness criterion effectively toothless (as we've been discussing at WT:DYK), which makes more work for promoters and provides a worse experience to our readers, just so that nominators don't have to deal with a hook not passing. I don't think that's reasonable. We've spent two months trying to make something work, two months that could've gone to reviewing other hooks that are more competitive for that Main Page spot. At the end of it, are we going to come up with a hook that justifies that work, in quality and impact?
  • I'll say "nay" to ALTs 3, 4, 5, and 7. I'll leave ALT6 to another reviewer, but beseech them to just close this nomination if they don't feel that ALT6 is worth it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure of your intended meaning there leeky, but nobody has veto powers here, we only have opinions, and where there is disagreement, things are sorted out by consensus. Having said that - I agree that ALT 6 is the most intriguing hook. The problem is that the hook fact is not currently in the article, although I think I saw it in one of the sources, so it needs to be added. Hawkeye7, could you do the honours please? Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Y It is done. (Rev 21:6) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT6 verified. Thank you everybody for your input! Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.afl.com.au/aflw/news/1066784/aria-award-winning-artist-g-flip-to-perform-in-the-2023-telstra-pre-game-entertainment http://theguardian.com/sport/live/2023/dec/03/aflw-2023-grand-final-north-melbourne-vs-brisbane-live-updates-kangaroos-lions-squads-scores-results-kick-off-time-ikon-park-victoria http://afl.com.au/aflw/news/1068653/what-time-does-the-2023-nab-aflw-grand-final-start-all-you-need-to-know-about-north-melbourne-v-brisbane-lions. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit war regarding disputed copyright violation

While reviewing the article I performed a copyright check via Earwig's Copyvio Detector. From my point of view the copyvio report showed copyright problems so I removed the text.

This was later disputed by @Hawkeye7 who reinstated the text (regarding the best on ground info) in this edit.

Here is the copyvio report from when Hawkeye7 reinstated the text– refer to the best on ground section.

Should this text remain in the article or be removed due to copyright issues?

(I have listed this discussion @ Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 December 5)––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring over this but 19.4%? Doesn't look like much of a copyright violation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, edit war was probably the wrong term, perhaps a content dispute is a better way to put it. Irregardless of the 19.4% rating which factors in the entire article which for the most part is clean, if you compare the best-on-ground medal paragraph to the source text, there are stark similarities which constitutes at best Closeparaphrasing, and at worst, a Copyvio. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:LIMITED how would you paraphrase the factual information that particular individuals were part of a panel that awarded the best-on-ground medal, and that the recently retired presenter of that medal has previously won the medal? Storm machine (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I changed "two-time" to "dual". This lowers Earwing to 17.4%. It won't go much lower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Storm machine: I disagree that WP:LIMITED is the case here, there are plenty of ways that this can be rephrased. Especially the first part that says Phillips was part of a five-person voting panel chaired by Seven Network. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2023 (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:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. – Teratix ₵ 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Lead image missing caption

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Brisbane logo looks amateurish, I get it's to avoid copyright issues but surely just use c:File:Brisbane AFLW icon.png or similar

  Y Replaced with c:File:Brisbane AFLW icon.png

• Brisbane had taken advantage of a strong pipeline for women AFL players in that state unclear, awkward and too close to the source

  Y Changed wording to make the point clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• but had been repeatedly raided for players for expansion teams talking about "raiding" and "expansion teams" makes no sense without AFLW background knowledge

  Y Added some background. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• In the 2023 AFL Women's season minor problem but don't need "AFL Women's" after first reference, this happens a few times through the article

  Y Added piped links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• the Brisbane Lions embarked on an intense pre-season training regime that included a 20-kilometre trail hike carrying 14 full metal jerry cans between them I get this turns out to be important later in the article but it reads like a weird amount of emphasis to put on a single event, surely pre-season information can be fleshed out a bit.

  Y Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• In general the background section needs expansion – more information about the clubs' seasons, finals journey, pre-match expectations.

  I was trying to keep the Background as focused as possible

  I understand there's a trade-off involved, just see what you can do. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Y Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Still too short, particularly on North Melbourne. – Teratix ₵ 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• By virtue of North Melbourne defeating Adelaide in the Preliminary Final, the Grand Final was held at Princes Park makes no sense unless you know Princes Park = Ikon Park, that North Melbourne's home ground is Princes Park, and the rules for how hosting priority is decided (after all, Brisbane also won a preliminary final – why didn't they host, a reader might ask).

  Y Added that Princes Park is North Melbourne's home ground is Princes Park. I have used "Princes Park" consistently, but noted the Ikon Park naming. I believe there was a decision on Wikipedia to use the customary names and not the naming rights names (which often do not last very long) but am unable to find the relevant RfC, assuming there was one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding is the current consensus is to use whatever the ground's name was at the time – see Talk:2011 AFL season#Sponsored Venues and Talk:2020 AFL season#Stadium Sponsor Names. – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Y Okay. Used "Ikon Park" consistently. I note in passing that the sources do not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was disappointment that the larger Docklands Stadium could not be used Who was disappointed?

• Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• The entertainment and media coverage parts are presently too short to warrant their own section headers.

  Y Merged these sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• despite injury concerns around some Brisbane players but then you only list one player

  Y Changed to refer to Davidson only. My apologies for drifting into OR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• A jerry can was displayed only makes sense if you have the context provided in the source

  The context is provided above in the Background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  The hike is mentioned but its connection to the matchday jerry can is unstated. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Y Added a little bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• North Melbourne's Emma Kearney, Jenna Bruton and Kim Rennie had won a premiership with the Western Bulldogs in 2018 Grand Final, a match in which Tahlia Randall had played for Brisbane this is a jarring sentence which gives the impression Randall is playing for the opposite team!

  Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Still needs work – maybe split into two or rewrite? – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Nesting the team templates in tables looks really hacky (compare to 2023 AFL Grand Final), surely there's a better way.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing to say about the umpires?

  Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• The TV broadcast sections in the infobox and scoreboard contradict each other

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Odd to see extensive ABC coverage [1] [2] [3] go unused. ESPN also has quite a bit.
• Jasmine Garner and Taylah Gatt celebrate who is who?

  Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Brisbane won the coin toss. significance of this unclear without AFLW background

  Y This proved difficult. I have added an explanation, which I had to reference from the game rules. Aside: my father captained an AFL team for several years and never lost a coin toss. He would often point out that in the 21st century it has become a sham, with the winner of the toss invariably electing to kick to the end their team is already warming up at. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, that's quite a streak! – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Match summary is plagued by editorialisation: key figure, one of the fittest teams in the competition, an improbable goal, brilliant work, perhaps due to her knee injury, clearly had not fully healed, who had been a lion in defence in more ways than one, put the result beyond doubt etc etc. (list not exhaustive)

  This does not meet our Wikipedia definition of MOS:EDITORIAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't mean editorialisation in the MOS:EDITORIAL sense, just the plain sense of "expressing opinions when plain discussion of the facts is called for". – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. Text: "This was a major blow, as Bruton had been a key figure in the preliminary final win against Adelaide".

• Source 21: "She was the match-winner in the one-point preliminary final win over Adelaide, but Jenna Bruton's Grand Final lasted just three minutes"

• Source 22: "Barnstorming Bruton saves the day. Garner, Ash Riddell and to a lesser extent, Mia King, have won all the midfield plaudits this year, but it was the ever-unheralded Jenna Bruton who starred in the third term. The diminutive midfielder dragged North Melbourne back into the game after Adelaide had taken control, recording 13 disposals and four inside 50s for the 20-minute term, her hard work leading directly to Randall's second major."

If you're saying you can attribute these editorialisations to sources, then these need to be attributed in-text and should not be in wikivoice. – Teratix ₵ 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• who had scored the first ever goal in an AFLW match back in 2017 relevant?

• Seems relevant to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  How so? It was six years ago at the time of the game. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Having described North Melbourne as an expansion team, I wanted to emphasise the experience of some of the players. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't really read that way, it just reads as an unrelated fact about Garner. – Teratix ₵ 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• About half of BOG section is not related to BOG

• Y Split premiership cup off into its own section

  The section is titled "premiership cup" but you don't actually mention the cup until the end. And it's a bit short for its own section – I was more envisioning some sort of retitling or subsection rather than an outright split.

• It was the third for coach Craig Starcevich second?

  2021 and 2023 (AFLW) and 1990 (AFL)

  It's a bit confusing to sum playing and coaching premierships, especially from different leagues. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Garner BOG total votes and sum of individual votes don't match

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• No post-match section?

  Never had one before. What should it say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Analysis, reactions and reflections on the game from players, coaches, media and so on. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Given copyright concerns have already been raised on the talk page and I've already seen a couple of phrases I would consider too close to the original source, I'm going to check for copyright problems more thoroughly in the morning.
• Overall this seems quite a way short of GA status, would need extensive work for 1a) understandable to broad audience 1b) layout, words to watch 3a) addresses main aspects, 4) neutrality, along with minor work on 1a) clarity and 6b) captions.

  There's always arguments about what "understandable to broad audience" means. See Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just wanted to give a special mention to my favourite typo I've seen on Wikipedia so far: Kate Shierlaw took a spectacular mark in front of gaol

  Y Heh. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

– Teratix ₵ 15:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• OK, good to see progress here, I've left a few follow-up comments. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Left a few more replies. – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the delay, I've followed up again. – Teratix ₵ 11:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: not sure where you're at with this nomination? If it helps, the major issues to be resolved before a promotion would be neutrality in the match description and the depth of information on the background and aftermath. – Teratix ₵ 01:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no requirement at the GA level for depth of information. WP:GACR: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. I see no evidence that the article is non-neutral ie favouring one side over the other. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (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.