Talk:Game of Change

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 Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Loyola's Vic Rouse
shoots over Mississippi
State's Aubrey Nichols.

• ... that in 1963, a majority-black Loyola-Chicago team and an all-white Mississippi State team defied segregationists to play a historic college basketball game (pictured)? Source: "When Loyola-Chicago Broke a Racial Barrier 55 Years Ago", New York Times

• Comment: DYK suggested by User:Shirt58 on my talk page

Created by IagoQnsi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC).

• Comment: I've just added a photo to the nomination. –IagoQnsi (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Oh, just found out about QPQ – this is my first ever nomination so bear with me. I see that I get five free passes, but I went ahead and did one anyway: Template:Did you know nominations/Homo ergaster. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article is new enough and long enough, with over 5,000 characters. The hook itself is quite timely in nature and meets the formatting requirements. No QPQ review was required in this case (although it's nice that you did one anyway), and the photo licensing looks okay. However, some additional work is needed with the referencing. The aftermath section is entirely unsourced, and the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Loyola-Chicago background section also doesn't have a cite. This information doesn't seem too hard to find references for, but DYK criteria call for information in articles to be reliably sourced, so that must be done before this gets approved. The various aspects of the hook fact are supported in the article, but DYK criteria call for inline citations in the sentence that the relevant fact(s) appear in the article. In this case, to be safe, I'd recommend adding additional cites in the background sentences where the articles mentions Loyola having four black starters and Mississippi State being all-white, each of which come a sentence before existing refs that support the items. I'll AGF on the content supported by ref 6, since I don't have a NYT subscription, but the other content I checked was adequately supported and free of close paraphrasing. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Thanks for the review! I've added citations to the Aftermath section, the NIT sentence in the Loyola-Chicago background section, and to the statements in each background section about the racial makeup of each team. (I also ended up expanding the Mississippi State background and Aftermath sections in the process). Is there anything else you think needs adjusting? –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, the changes you made all look fine to me and address my concerns about the level of sourcing. As a bonus, the added newspapers.com links provide more verification for the parts of the blurb that had been backed by the old paywalled NYT article. The article looks good to go now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Game of Change/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Pass

   Pass/Fail:

Review

Lead

• Maybe WL segregationists
  •  Done –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Wl Bye (sports)
  •  Done –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• The first time you mention Ramblers (out of lead) is in the second paragraph. Should probably be mentioned earlier
  •  Done –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would mention On February 18, Loyola was awarded one of eleven at-large bids for the tournament before the February 28 incident
  •  In progress The Feb 28 incident was less of a singularly-important event, and more like an example of what they were facing all season. But I see how the lack of chronological order is confusing when I only touch on the discrimination aspect so briefly. I think I'm going to split the discrimination bit into its own paragraph and add more details of other incidents. I will try to add that shortly... –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Kind of odd how the Dean W. Colvard sentence is by itself. Please either merge it or expand on it to preferably three-four sentences.
  •  Done Good point. I've now added two sentences about the large volume of letters Colvard was receiving prior to his decision. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Why is reference 13 used twice for quotes? It can just be placed at the end of the second quote
  •  Done –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Don't love the use of In any event.
  •  Done Changed to Regardless of why, it is clear... –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Game summary

• Why is reference 22 used twice for quotes? It can just be placed at the end of the second quote.
  •  Done –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Illinois is already WL above
  •  Done –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

• Boxscore reference (#27) is not needed since the info is already stated in reference #26
  •  Not done Reference #27 is not strictly needed, but I wanted to include it because it provides a lot more information about the game, whereas the first reference only describes the game very briefly. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• How can reference 28 be used to verify a fact for an event that happened after it was published?
  •  Comment: I've dug up an archive link for that citation if you'd like to see for yourself. Apparently the list of inductees was announced prior to the actual induction ceremony. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Are two references needed to verify The team was also inducted into the Chicagoland Sports Hall of Fame on September 18, 2013?
  •  Nope; removed one –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4; thanks for taking the time to review this! I've made most of the changes you listed, and responded inline where I haven't changed them. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

IagoQnsi Thank you so much, I agree with all of your notes (including why you didn't change some things). Once the in progress incident is fixed I can pass this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Okay, I think the Loyola background is good to go now. I've added info about another incident, and restructured the second and third paragraphs a bit so that there's basically one paragraph about racial issues and one about basketball performance. Let me know what you think! Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Name origin

I was curious when the name "Game of Change" came into use. It seems that it was coined when Jerald Harkness (son of player Jerry Harkness) created a documentary film titled Game of Change in 2008. The wording doesn't appear at all in Newspapers.com prior to 2008; it first appears in some articles from 2008 about the documentary (e.g. Clarion-Ledger, The Daily Journal). It'd be nice if we could find a definitive source saying that that's where the name came from, so we could mention it in the article (my digging is original research so not usable). –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)