Template:Did you know nominations/Tom King (footballer)
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tom King (footballer) edit
... that Tom King conceded a goal to Guiseley following what was described as "disgraceful unsporting behaviour"?
- Reviewed: Moise Poida
- Comment: Article created on 24 September 2016, previous history was for an unrelated non-notable player whose article was deleted
Created by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC).
• 
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article is new and was created on 17:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2490 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- Note that this is a biographical article about a living person. All claims must be cited to a reliable source.
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 40.5% confidence. (confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
• 
Some overall issues detected
- ✗ The hook ALT0 is too long at 250 characters
- ✓ EchetusXe has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Moise Poida was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- source
- I have edited the hook to comply with DYK rules - "that" was missing. Bot is incorrect that hook length is a problem, due to the trial of the inclusion of a source with the hook. I have moved the source to here. Full review to follow. EdChem (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Article was created 24 September, has over 1500 characters readable prose, and nominated the same day.
- Article is not a stub in my opinion.
- All of the text contains references as inline citations and with no bare urls; sources in an appropriate References section.
- Direct quotations are sourced and in quotation marks. This is the reason for the Earwig report at around 40% but this is not a copyvio. No plagiarism noted.
- No dispute tags and article is not an orphan.
- Article is not balanced in that the majority of the text concerns the incident in the hook. The international career section notes caps but provides no other information. This is not a disqualifying fact for DYK, but does indicate areas for future expansion of the article. The hook incident was certainly controversial in football but the unsportsmanlike behaviour was not on the part of the BLP subject. The clarity of what occurred could be improved as the article presumes some knowledge of football, but then most readers looking at a bio of a footballer will have that.
- References do establish the facts in the hook - that King conceded a goal and that the description "disgraceful unsporting behaviour" was used, but I am not comfortable with the hook as it is. I think it is open to being read as suggesting the unsporting behaviour was from King, which is not the case. Further, in reading the source, it is not clear to me whether the unsporting behaviour was by Norburn who scored the goal rather than passing King the ball (as fair play protocol dictated), or from the manager Bower in refusing to allow the walk through. I would like to see either a modified hook or a new hook that clarifies these issues. The basic facts are established and appropriately hooky but the hook itself needs a redraft.
- QPQ review done, though review does not indicate any check for copyvio and related issues - this should be fixed. I'm not sure about "interesting" for "... that SOCCER PLAYER 1 has played against SOCCER PLAYER 2?" either.
Close but not quite yet. EdChem (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @EdChem: I'm the nominator of Poida's article. I would say it is quite interesting that a amateur player from a tiny country in the pacific with a population of 200,000 played against Zinedine Zidane, one of the worlds best ever players who has won a World Cup and was voted the best player in the world in 1998 and who now coaches the biggest club in the world. I'd say that is interesting. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Yellow Dingo, just noting that I have seen your comment and I want to make it clear that 'interesting' is a subjective. I am holding up this nomination until the hook issue is addressed, and will not pass the QPQ while that review does not address copyvio issues. I will not hold things up over my thoughts on interestingness, though I may post to seek the opinions of others. To be clear, even if I thought your hook was the most amazing I had ever seen, I would still view that the other two issues would need to be addressed. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I totally understand what your saying EdChem, of course interestingness is subjective. Also, EchetusXe would have to confirm, but in the QPQ he indicates the article is "within policy", often than means that the article has no copyvios. That said, it might not and, as your the reviewer, whether the QPQ is satisfactory is totally up to you and entirely your perogotive. And of course other issues are highly important. Thank for your explanation, - Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of issues lately with hooks being pulled and reviews being found wanting. Consequently, I follow my instinct to be thorough. The review I have written above not only says what I think, it also tells anyone looking later what I have considered. I am uncomfortable with reviews that basically say "policy compliant" because it gives no hint what was actually checked. It could have been a thorough review or a cursory one, and no one can tell. EchetusXe may have checked copyvio, but without the review saying so, I can't know. If it has been checked, noting it will fix the QPQ issue. If it hasn't been checked, it should be and a report posted. EdChem (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC) PS: Thanks for understanding the importance of the issues. :)
- Yeah I totally understand what your saying EdChem, of course interestingness is subjective. Also, EchetusXe would have to confirm, but in the QPQ he indicates the article is "within policy", often than means that the article has no copyvios. That said, it might not and, as your the reviewer, whether the QPQ is satisfactory is totally up to you and entirely your perogotive. And of course other issues are highly important. Thank for your explanation, - Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Yellow Dingo, just noting that I have seen your comment and I want to make it clear that 'interesting' is a subjective. I am holding up this nomination until the hook issue is addressed, and will not pass the QPQ while that review does not address copyvio issues. I will not hold things up over my thoughts on interestingness, though I may post to seek the opinions of others. To be clear, even if I thought your hook was the most amazing I had ever seen, I would still view that the other two issues would need to be addressed. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @EdChem: I'm the nominator of Poida's article. I would say it is quite interesting that a amateur player from a tiny country in the pacific with a population of 200,000 played against Zinedine Zidane, one of the worlds best ever players who has won a World Cup and was voted the best player in the world in 1998 and who now coaches the biggest club in the world. I'd say that is interesting. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a young player, so the incident currently takes up a lot of the article as one expects that another 10-15 years of his career will follow. I get your point about the hook though, so how about this:
- (ALT1):
... that Guiseley A.F.C. broke an unwritten fair play convention to score past goalkeeper Tom King?
That way we avoid the controversy over whether it was the player, team or manager who broke the fair play convention.EchetusXe 13:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have labelled your suggestion ALT1. I liked the quotation, it gave the hook hookiness. What about something like:
- (ALT1a):
... that in an incident subsequently described as "disgraceful unsporting behaviour", a Guiseley A.F.C. player scored past goalkeeper Tom King and broke an unwritten fair-play convention?
- Also, I appreciate that the balance issue is mostly a consequence of an incident gaining major attention so early in a senior career. As I said in my review, it is not a disqualifying issues as what is there is policy compliant (neutral, verifiable, etc) and DYK articles are not expected to be "complete"; however, there are areas which could obviously be expanded. EdChem (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I do like that. How about switching it around to:
- (ALT1b): ... that Guiseley A.F.C. were accused of "disgraceful unsporting behaviour" when a player broke an unwritten fair-play convention to score past goalkeeper Tom King?
- I would say the player broke fair play conventions to score the goal – whether he intended to score or not, and then by refusing to allow a 'walk in' goal the manager prevented his team from correcting the "error". It is difficult to take all these nuances into a hook! EchetusXe 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I have done a full review, and all issues which I raised have been resolved. The problem is that the current proposed hook, ALT1b, is a variation on a suggestion I made, so I am unable to give the tick (though I would if it were my call). New reviewer needed to get this nomination over the line. EdChem (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Approving ALT1b as being supported by an inline citation, and otherwise relying on EdChem's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
