Jump to content

Talk:Netball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 38.127.146.226 (talk) at 15:02, 30 January 2013 (serious conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleNetball has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 23, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 26, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 27, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 20, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:0.7 set nom Template:On OOBasketball

Template:Copied-multi

Current status of article

I had heard that this article had a hard time with the GA process, so I decided to take a look and see what would need to be done to bring it up to snuff. Surprisingly, I found very few problems. Indeed, most of the issues identified by previous reviews seem to be resolved at this point. I did a bit of copyediting, but I couldn't really find much to improve. The only issue from the previous reviews that I think could still be argued is that the article relies too heavily on primary sources. This seems to be rather common with sports articles, however, especially lower profile sports that don't get the benefit of pervasive news coverage. That said, this article currently uses over 50 secondary sources, and as far as I can tell, any statements which could be construed as "promoting netball" are all cited to secondary sources. Indeed, the wording of the article now seems at pains to avoid any appearance of POV. As one example, The Sports Book, which is a reliable source published in multiple countries, states that netball has more participants in Commonwealth countries than any other sport. Our article, however, simply says that netball is "popular in many Commonwealth nations". The overwhelming majority of the primary source citations are just to back up uncontroversial facts, which is allowed by policy. So personally, I don't see this as an issue. If I were to GA review the article myself, I think I would be hard-pressed not to pass it at this point. Is my opinion in left field or do others feel like it might be up to snuff at this point? If not, what issues still need to be addressed? Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only addition I would like to see is a women's section under Demographics as this is an important aspect of Netball that is perhaps understated elsewhere in the article. However, even without this it is in my opinion at GA status. I can't help but feel the GA review that saw it delisted was tainted by the arbcom case running alongside it. Enough time has probably passed now to give it another shot at promotion. AIRcorn (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As women's netball is the default for the sport I don't see any point in creating a Women section under Demographics. (It would be like creating a "Men" section under Baseball, or creating a "Non-disabled athletes" section here, both of which would seem a bit absurd.) There is already discussion of the gender issue in the lead, the history section, and the Men section, which seems adequate, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the section is headed demographics. Not including the largest demographic in such a section doesn't seem right to me. AIRcorn (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest changing the header then. The sections under it are clearly all minority demographics that represent exceptions from the normal sport. Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the header since it was something of a misnomer. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of a better heading, so your solution is probably best. AIRcorn (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Netball/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Multiple issues exist:
    • Inconsistent capitalization
    • Improper capitalization
    • Missing articles
    • Words do not flow in the lead
    • Poor wording in areas (such as "Description and rules")
    • Transitions needed in areas
    • Metric units are incorrectly pluralized in areas
    • Words and/or phrases are used repeatedly (e.g. in "Description and rules")
    		 Fail Fail
    (b) (MoS) This article is missing elements:
    Further information: WP:FOOTERS, WP:ALSO, and WP:FNNR
    Considering this article has children articles, these sections are probably needed.    		 Fail Fail
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References need to be in order. So this is bad: [8][2] Fail Fail
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) This has improved since last time... Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) This article is rambling! This article needs to be in summary style.
    Further information: WP:SUMMARY
    		 Fail Fail
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No issues here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Some of the captions are weak. (Look for: "A player","A netball","Local mixed") Fail Fail

Result

Result Notes
Fail Fail This article needs a major revision and copyediting. It does not qualify for WP:GA status nor does it meet Wikipedia standards. Please help to improve this article by correcting the above issues.

Once it is ready, send me a message on my talk page and I will expedite the approval.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement 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.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

TO-DO list for GA round 4

The article failed GA again, so, let's work together to make this happen!

There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what I mean/want, so here is my list. I will add to it tomorrow.

To-do Checklist

Note: Do not add discussion in this list. Only mark as  Done or use the other similar templates! Thanks, Don4of4 [Talk] 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copy-edit the entire article -  Done Sarah removed the tag, following my extensive copy-edits and those of others. -Pete (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix lead (style) - Not sure
  • Update image captions -  Done These have been expanded and copyedited. The only one which is still extremely basic is the caption for the player shooting at the goal in the Rules section. Since this is just meant to illustrate the idea of shooting a goal, no elaboration is necessary, in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sections more WP:SUMMARY compliment by generalizing (more):  Half done I believe this is resolved, after much discussion below and some substantial changes. -Pete (talk)
  • Description and rules - Not sure
  • Variants - Not sure
  • Globally - Not sure
  • Combine Transgendered and Disabled Athletes (and mens?) sections under one super section -  Half done Resolved in a different, and I believe better, way; see discussion below. -Pete (talk)
  • Fix red links -  Not done All redlinks look appropriate to me -- i.e., plausibly notable, and compliant with the WP:REDLINK guideline. Is there a problem? -Pete (talk)
  • the article says that IFNA has 67 national members, but in the "Globally" section, it says that the IFNA had 60 members in 2011, which is cited to a 2009 reference! But if I count them from the IFNA website, there are 49 full members and 21 associate members, making a total of 70.  Half done I made the language a bit more general, which I believe covers this. No reason a fluctuating number needs to be named precisely in an overview article. -Pete (talk)
  • Fix references -  Done (according to Don)

To-do Discussion

Talk here with subheadings for new topics. (=====TITLE=====)

Inconsistency in cited number of IFNA members

I've just quickly gone through this article. In both the lead and the governance sections, the article says that IFNA has 67 national members, but in the "Globally" section, it says that the IFNA had 60 members in 2011, which is cited to a 2009 reference! But if I count them from the IFNA website, there are 49 full members and 21 associate members, making a total of 70. I understand that not all members are sovereign nations or even constituent countries, but this inconsistency is a bit alarming. Graham87 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IFNA site is a bit behind the 8-ball when it comes to updating its information, but they also state on their website that they currently have 74 national associations affiliated with them (there were about four or five new associate members announced in the last month or so). The inconsistency in the wiki article is probably due to the ad-hoc way that information has been added over time. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article length, summary style, specificity

Don4of4, above you said the article is too specific, and needs to be shortened to better comply with the Summary Style guideline. [1]

As a matter of personal judgment, I agree that a shorter summary article is better, as you can see from my "oppose" !vote on the article's FA nomination several months back: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Netball/archive1&diff=420938492&oldid=420924385

However, I believe in terms of length and specificity, this article is well within the norms of what is sufficient for GA status -- even FA status. I find two articles about sports in the list of FAs: Baseball and Association football. In each case, the section on rules (which you brought forth as an example above) is substantially longer than the analogous netball section. Both in the absolute number of words, and as a percentage of the whole article. In addition, those articles are substantially longer as a whole than netball. This is true whether you consider the current revisions, or look at the versions as most recently approved for the FA designation. [2] [3]

So, respectfully, I think we should move on from the article length issue as one of the things holding this article back from GA. I do see how the absence of templates like {{main}} in the PDF generated would have confused the issue; thanks for noticing this was one of the things causing our disconnect. And I also see the value in the other critiques you have brought forward. But I think this one is more a matter of personal taste, than a qualifier/disqualifier for GA. -Pete (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I've just completed a copyedit of the whole article, and I cut out some detail and reduced length slightly in, I think, every one of the sections. Hopefully this addresses any lingering concerns you might have here. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, article length seems fine for now. Some sections should probably be refocused in terms of content. The Globally section comes to mind: it's already been trimmed to a good length, but we could remove some of the more esoteric information (e.g., when the Malaysian Netball Association was formed; results of the 2010 Caribbean Championships) and add some more general content (e.g., developing the game in India; rise and fall of the T&T national team). I'll do so today if no-one objects. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transgendered and Disabled Athletes

How would you suggest combining these into 1 "super section"? They are very different topics. What section title would you group them under? Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comes from my comment, in the now-collapsed section. I don't know what the best solution is, but I do think there is a need for a better structure. Of course men, mixed gender, transgender, and disabled athletes are very different groups; however, they are similar in the sense that each is a population whose participation in netball is a notable variation from the broadly-discussed women's sport. As topics, they are very unlike "rules" or "governing body". But, I agree with the earlier determination that "demographics" wasn't the appropriate heading.
One possibility might be to work these into the "history" section, rather than putting them into their own separate sections. Not sure if that's the best way to go, but I do think it would be an improvement over the current structure. -Pete (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the current structure doesn't work, I would favor moving them into separate sections - Disabled athletes to Variants and Transgendered athletes to History. Kaldari (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an elegant solution, and will make more sense from the reader's perspective. I'd also put "men" in the "variants" section. In addition to dealing with the categorization of these..er..demographics, it also has the nice side-effect of bringing the "Netball around the globe" section together with the "international competition" section, which will improve the overall article flow. I'll take a crack at this. -Pete (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the rules of netball are actually different for men (as they are for disabled athletes) I don't think it makes sense to put it in Variations. Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a substantial difference between rules about who is eligible to play (men, women, children of a certain age, etc.), how it is funded, and what equipment is used, or how a certain position can move. Any of the above seem like a variant on the general/most common practice of netball, which seems to be adult women. Having "men" in a different place than "children" seems rather odd and arbitrary to me; I understand that the play is different in the children's variants and the same in men's and mixed-gender games, but I don't understand why that warrants putting them in entirely different places in the article? From the reader's perspective, I believe the reader would generally approach the article with questions like "how is netball for men?" without any preconceived notion of whether the rules would be the same or different; from that perspective, I think the "variants" section would be a place they might expect to find information about men in the sport. -Pete (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The disabled athletes section should actually be renamed "Wheelchair netball" as this is a variation of the game played by both disabled and non-disabled athletes that has different rules - for example, no contact is allowed. When men play netball, they play by the same rules as women, so I don't see how it could be considered a "variation" of the game. The only difference is who is playing. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wheelchair: I agree, and I've changed it. Men: what about incorporating that into the "history" section too? It's framed in terms of its historical evolution, by decade, anyway. And keeping the two gender-related topics together (transgender and men) should improve flow, too. -Pete (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine with me. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge in late. Men's netball warrants a separate section IMO, the same way that women's sport typically gets individual sections in other sports articles. Much is happening currently in the area and it seems unfair to relegate it to the History section; I'd be happy to add some current information (very pleased to see GA efforts in earnest :). There's an international tournament being held in Australia next month (a friend of mine is representing NZ). Personally I'd go with "men's and mixed netball", since they tend to go together, even at national and international level. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, keep Men separate and rename to Men and mixed netball. Transgendered could be possibly be included in this section too. AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Children section might be better under Rules too. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. Children's netball isn't really a separate variant, more like modified games design to teach rules gradually. Objections to moving them? – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liveste, your help is welcome regardless of when you arrive! I suppose I could say I'm a bit late to the party too, though I've been lurking for some time.
If we don't want to fall into the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS trap, we should keep our attention on FA's on similar topics. In that light, Baseball seems like a good guide -- it's a sport that is almost entirely played by one gender. There is not a separate "women" or "gender" section; rather, the ways that women's play has impacted the sport is woven organically into the article. With netball, I don't see why we should approach it differently; with only 0.7% of participants being male, and with the rules being exactly the same, and with it not being particularly notable as a socially significant gender empowerment issue, I don't see why a separate section is needed; a paragraph in the history section seems like the right approach to me. I suppose a sub-section of history called "gender" that covers men's netball, mixed, and transgendered could work, if others feel strongly about this.
As for the "children" thing, I think it makes more sense where it is. The "rules" section covers the basic rules of the sport, and "variants" covers rules that vary from that. That's a nice, user-friendly structure that's easy to grasp. If we incorporate children's rules into the "rules" section, I think it will be more confusing to the reader -- one of the exceptions is in the main section, the other exceptions get their own section. Why have a separate "variants" section at all if we're going to weave variations into the rules section? It might make sense to make "variants" as a whole a sub-section of "description and rules," but IMHO Children should remain a sub-section of "variants" even if we do that. -Pete (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it is presented at the moment you are probably right about Mens netball. However to me variants covers more than just minor rule variations, but relatively large scale deviations from the original game that almost see them become their own individual sports. For example Fastnet is like rugby sevens or twenty20 cricket (can't think of a similar USA example sorry), indoor netball like indoor soccer and wheelchair netball like wheelchair basketball (although admittedly I don't know much about this). The main differences with childrens netball are practical due to their smaller size and lower endurance, i.e. shorter quarters, smaller balls and lower goals. I still think fastnet and indoor netball (even wheelchair netball) are different enough to warrant an individual variations section, but children's netball is still essentially netball and would work better attached onto the bottom of the rules section. BTW thanks for coming out of the shadows, your help has been invaluable and the article has significantly improved. AIRcorn (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that gender/men's netball deserves a separate section. The Baseball article does a good job of integrating women's baseball information across all sections, but the Netball article mentions gender/men's netball in one (sub)section only. Or at the very least, I don't think it should be in the History section. The Globally section would be more appropriate, along with some more general information (governing bodies, local-level popularity, more recent stats). Pete and Aircorn both make good points about children's netball: I don't mind either way where it goes now. I am concerned about wheelchair netball having it's own subsection though – it's even less well known than men's netball (I'd actually never heard of it before reading this article). There's also beach netball starting up in Australia. Perhaps an "Other variations" subsection? – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, thanks for the compliment on my editing - and sorry I've been sort of MIA for a bit. Partly busy with other things, partly letting some of what's been said sink in and thinking it over.
Liveste, I guess I'm just sort of baffled about the gender issue. I don't understand why the general article about Netball should devote more of its coverage than a subsection to a version that is not admitted by the main governing body into main competitions; that has no international competition of its own; that is played only in a small part of the world; and that accounts for less than 1% of players. I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered, but I don't understand why it should be covered in a way that's substantially different from how it is now. My main concern in this is Don4of4's comments about the narrative flow of the article, and the ability of the reader to find information in a way that roughly reflects the reality of the sport (i.e., reflects men's netball as the minor variation that it apparently is). The "History" section seems appropriate, given that men's and transgendered netball appear to be recent developments, and are presented in chronological context; and also because the "History" section is where the sport's original genesis as a women's sport is covered. (I do think the "Globally" section could work though, as you suggest, since men's netball is apparently also pretty specific to one part of the world. If you want to take a crack at moving it there that's fine with me.)
I think the "Wheelchair netball" subsection could maybe just be deleted; maybe stubbified and listed in "See also". -Pete (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stubbified Wheelchair netball, but can't think of a good way to link to it from this article. It will look out of place in the See also section and I couldn't get it to fit into the history. I have added a sentence to the main Netball History article so it is not orphaned. AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article so that it is still comprehensive. Kaldari (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

I did a thorough copyedit a week or so ago -- went through every section. Can somebody determine if my efforts (and those of others, like Graham, who has also done a bunch of copyediting) are good enough to remove the tag at the top of the article? -Pete (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)  Done Thanks Sarah! -Pete (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting re-review

I believe the work we have done here, following Don4of4's review, has been solid; and it appears pretty stable, with only small edits in the last couple weeks. I'm going to ask Don to take another look. -Pete (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure completely removing the Wheelchair netball section would count as a small edit. What did we decide to do with that anyway? Just create a link from See Also? Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I should have said this explicitly. I do agree that issue is unresolved, and I tend to agree with you -- that there ought to be a link in there somewhere. However, in my opinion, the inclusion or exclusion of a single small topic shouldn't be enough to affect the GA nom; I think we can proceed with identifying the best solution to that in parallel. Do you want to stick a sentence and link in somewhere? -Pete (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article I can say It is much improved and is now GA material. However, someone must renominate it for me to approve it. Don4of4 [Talk] 01:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just renominated, as you've probably seen. -Pete (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm so last minute, but what do you guys think of retitling the Gender section under History to "Gender diversification", otherwise it's not initially clear how it relates to netball history. Good idea? Terrible idea? Kaldari (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That rename sounds fine to me. However, I'm not so sure about your removal of the "0.7 male" statistic:
I can see how the flow was cumbersome, but I do think this statistic is important: it clearly shows the scale of gender participation. Without something specific like this, it would be very easy for an uninformed reader to read the entire article and have the misperception that male participation was maybe in the realm of 20%. I believe it's important to work this statistic in in some way, but I do agree that the phrasing could be improved. -Pete (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::I like the idea of renaming the section. I do agree with Pete regarding the removal of the data. It's actually a pretty powerful statistic. SarahStierch (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in my right mindset when I wrote this. Yes, English school children, very narrow. (Long night last night). I think we should just drop the statistic unless we can get something meaty with a source. SarahStierch (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with the statistic is that it is very narrow (English school children). This 2010 article says 5000 men play in Australia (which doing some quick math is roughly 1.5%). Could we get away with saying something general like "less than 1.5 percent of Netball players are male". Otherwise as it appears more popular in Australia (and Australia is mentioned prominently in the section) maybe the 5000 statistic should be presented. AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about something along these lines, to begin the Gender diversification section:

And then rewrite the rest of the section a bit to flow from that. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with leaving out the English statistic as it doesn't really offer much to my mind. That only a low number of male children play netball in England is not surprising as there is a lot more stigma attached to playing "a girls sport" at school than when you are older. It will still be mentioned in the Men's Netball article. I like the first sentence though and would include the 1.5% as it is relatively current, reliable and broader, plus it still would give the reader a good idea of what gender dominates netball participation. How about for the second sentence "[However,] Male participation in the sport is increasing, with 5000 men playing netball across Australia in 2010, roughly 1.5 percent of the total netballers and double the number in 2007." That fits in better with the tone of the newspaper article and still ties in with the history section. Not sure whether it should start with however or not or if there is a better word than netballers. AIRcorn (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the gist of what you've wrote Pete. Mostly agree with Aircorn as well. (Is that contradictory?) Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Netball/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) This article is way overdue a review. I'll read this over and provide a review within a few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review is below. I'll put this on hold to wait for responses to my comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Muboshgu, thanks for the review! Much appreciate your putting your attention on this article. I'm heartened to see that you don't have any major/structural problems -- maybe we are finally getting to a good place with this article! I'll go through your detailed comments and work on addressing them in the next day or two. I've taken an initial pass tonight, see inline comments below. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a quick glance at the past review pages and work done on the talk page since, I think you've done a good job of responding to past issues. My specific comments:

  • The first thing I noticed is that there are no citations in the lead. I think a few citations would help, especially when you're talking about timeframes. In this case, I don't have a problem with reusing citations from the body, since there's nothing especially controversial in the lead.
    • The lead has been free of citations for some time, I believe through a couple of reviews. Considering that Wikipedia:Lead#Citations states that articles on non-controversial topics might have lead sections entirely free of citations, as long as the facts summarized are cited in the body text, are there items here that are controversial enough to require redundant citation? If so, please point them out, and I'll gladly fix it. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check comma usage: (ex: "By 1960 international playing rules...", "As of 2011, IFNA comprises...", "...and in 1924 the first national governing...", "According to Proteas captain Elsje Jordaan it was hoped...", etc.)
    • I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do here. I see the parallel in the examples you've identified; and I see that the use of a comma is not consistent from one to the next. However, it's my understanding that both forms are acceptable, and that the decision of whether or not to use a comma in such a case should take into account the flow of the surrounding prose. I may be wrong about this; but if there is a hard-and-fast rule, I guess I just don't know what it is. The Manual of Style, for once, fails to enlighten! Do you have any further suggestions? -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed the first and last of the examples above. The first one needed the comma to avoid ambiguity. The last one needed the comma to be consistent with our other "According to..." sentences, which all have commas. I'll look through and see if there are any others that need to be fixed. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, there are parentheses in parentheses. MOS doesn't explicitly say anything about that, but I'm not a fan. I'll be satisfied with its prose if you reduce it to one set of parentheses.
    • The MoS doesn't explicitly mention it, but it does (1) state that its rules apply to both rounded and square brackets, and it lists several examples that show square brackets within rounded parentheses. In this case, I'm not sure what the problem is; the acronym necessitates parentheses, and I can't think of a non-parenthetical grammatical construction that would be as good. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is pretty good, but there are a few halting sentences that could be improved. For example, "From the start, netball was viewed as an appropriate sport for women to play, with restricted movement that appealed to contemporary notions of women's participation in sports, while remaining distinct from potential rival male sports."
    • I agree, there is room for improvement in several places. I took a crack at cleaning up that sentence, but after looking at the one source that is available online, I don't (at the moment) see any way to improve the sentence further without straying too much from the meaning. I will also take another pass through the article in the next day or two and look for other awkward sentences/passages. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An all transgendered" requires a hyphen.
  • The "For children" section could use some prose tightening. One sentence paragraphs are generally inadvisable. In this case, the one sentence paragraph is unreferenced.
    • Agreed, I'll take another look at this section. I'm not entirely convinced the article needs quite so much detail about each variant. My inclination would be to simplify the entire section to one or two paragraphs and eliminate some of the details. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks do seem to conform to policy.
  • The "International competition" and "Major championships" sections seem to have overlapping information that could be presented in a better fashion. If you keep it as is, I won't fail this GA for it. Take that as more of a suggestion for an FA review.
    • Good observation, thanks. I'll take a closer look at this. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I nibbled around the edges in these sections, but I think your general point still applies. I don't see an easy fix, but I strongly agree that this could use some structural improvement. If there is a FA push for this article, this is something that really should be carefully considered. Thanks for the useful feedback. -Pete (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some reference issues that need to be addressed. The checklinks tool isn't giving me anything in the "Broken" column, but I can't open some of the "Indeterminate" column refs, specifically #'s 31, 86 and 106. #101 says "no record found". #'s 83 and 84 seem to redirect somewhere that doesn't provide the info it references.
    • Good catches. I think most of these could be resolved by simply removing the hyperlinks, as there are full citations provided that would permit verification. My results were slightly different from yours: 31 and 101 give me trouble too, but 86 and 106 seem to work fine. I will look more closely at 83 and 84. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might've given you the wrong numbers. The source titles are "The History Of Netball In Sri Lanka", "Sports - Netball", "Tally by Country", "Queens leave for Liverpool on Sunday", "Indoor Netball at Planet Sports", "Netball moves towards professionalism", "Seychelles invited for netball tourney", and " The FIAT Netball Superleague". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is something wrong with all those for me too. I added a lot of them and they were alright a few months ago. I will see if I can find some archived versions. Failing that we should still be able to use the newspaper sources as the web sites are generally considered to just be convenience links. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Sports - Netball" and "Tally be country" always seems to go to the default home page whatever I insert. Have left instructions using the quote paramater to access the information from this site. If anyone has a better way feel free to use it. Found archives for "Seychelles invited for netball tourney", "Queens leave for Liverpool on Sunday" and "Indoor Netball at Planet Sports". AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed the links for "Netball moves towards professionalism" and "The FIAT Netball Superleague", so that should just leave the Sri Lankan one. Might have to search for a new source
  • Be sure this article conforms to the policy on gender-neutral language. "His/her" isn't the way to do it.
    • Good point. I see two occurrences. My inclination would be to simply replace them with "her." I think we may have discussed this before though, and somebody may have objected to that -- I don't remember for sure. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe an IP editor changed it to "his/her" from "her" after my initial review. I'll look at the talk page for mention of this, but it should be gender-neutral unless it is specifically for a women's competition. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of every quarter and after a goal has been scored, play starts with a player in the Centre position passing the ball from the centre of the court. Should "Centre" be capitilised. It works well in disambiguation it from "the centre of the court", but I am not convinced it is strictly correct. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any edits here or on the page since Thursday. What's the status? I see the Sri Lanka deadlink is still there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found two refs to replace one instance, but none to replace the Even though netball was played in Sri Lanka as early as 1926, an official governing body was not created there until 1972 sentence. I can remove it if no-one else comes up with anything. Is there anything else that needs to be done?

Hi all -- sorry that I've been absent. Looks like you have things well in hand; I'm reviewing the discussion above to see what I can still do to pitch in. One small thing I noticed: Aircorn, with this edit, you seem to have broken a second edit that shared that ref name (ref #32). Could you take a look? I'm not sure the best way to resolve that one. -Pete (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Sri Lankan sentence. Sri Lanka is still mentioned at the start of the paragraph and Asia gets a mention with Singapore and Malaysia so it won't affect the world wide view too much. De-cappitilised centre as well. I think that should cover all the points. AIRcorn (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all have done a great job with this article. While there are still some questions that remain to be addressed for FA status, you've more than met the requirements for GA status. Congratulations, you pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring rules, part 2

Just touching on an old discussion about goaltending, the tactic has been successfully pulled off (more than once) by the Northern Mystics during a match in this year's ANZ Championship. It's caused something of a minor controversy (goaltending is actually illegal in basketball), but according to the league's umpiring panel it's perfectly fine in netball. (Apparently, it's seen in men's netball on occasion, too.) What isn't allowed is interfering with the goalpost or touching the net. Interesting stuff. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry on this article

A recent application filed by three of the editors involved with this article[4] shows serious meatpuppetry. The three editors traveled from Australia to the United States for a ski trip in December 2012 and sought retroactive funding from Wikimedia Australia. These cohorts cannot be viewed as independent actors. 38.127.146.226 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Scully & Clarke 1997, p. 26
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netball&oldid=535697243"