Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caitlin Clark/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2024 [1].

Caitlin Clark

Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Caitlin Clark, the reigning national player of the year in women's college basketball, who led Iowa to its first national championship game last season while breaking several records. Hoping to bring a third college basketball bio to FA status after the promotion of Paige Bueckers and Angel Reese. This article is well-sourced and comprehensive, with high-quality images, and I have edited it for almost 2 years and expect to keep it updated. Sportzeditz (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris

Wikilink freshman, sophomore, junior, senior (in both lead and body), these are not terms used or understood outside the United States
Wikilink sixth grade, I personally (as a non-American) have no idea what age group this relates to
Wikilink Class 5A, no idea what this means
"Clark named first-team Class 5A All-State" => "Clark was named first-team Class 5A All-State"
"Iowa reached the Sweet 16" - what does this mean?

The names for each round are explained in the tournament page linked earlier. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"field goals" - thought that was an American football thing?
"Listed as day-to-day" - what does this mean?

Removed this as unnecessary. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the ability to score in the paint" - what the heck does this mean?
Under business interests, can you reword so we don't have two consecutive sentences starting "On October 10"
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I have addressed all points or replied above. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support stumbled upon the article after Ms. Clark was all over the news, impressive work for an athlete that has yet to turn pro. igordebraga ≠ 17:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Was File:Flyover at the Crossover at Kinnick (8075451).jpg taken as part of the guardsman duties? Otherwise, ALT text, image placement and licencing seems OK to me. Source spot-check on request. What is Hawk Central? Gatorade is a rather unusual source for a basketball article; what makes it reliable here? #32 needs a bit more information. With respect to #44 and other such sources, it seems like sources with writers named have parenthetical dates before the title, sources without named writers after the title without a parenthese, which seems a little inconsistent. Why is The Washington Post with an ISSN? At the risk of setting off a landmine, should the op-ed by Karen Attiah (#100) be attributed in-text? It seems like she's pretty prominent and thus her opinion on the topic she's cited for worth noting, though. Why is #107 marked as closed access? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yes for the question about the image. Hawk Central is a website run by The Des Moines Register for news about Iowa Hawkeyes athletics. Gatorade is cited for information about Gatorade Player of the Year awards, which were established by Gatorade. I have changed #32 to a source with more information. Not sure what the best format for sources like #44 would be - for previous FAs, I have used the current format. Removed the ISSN for consistency. I did not attribute in-text because the incident was widely covered and commented on by many prominent writers or commentators. I have removed the closed access tag for #107. Sportzeditz (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, does this do the trick? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Nice article and more or less an FA as it stands. (You can take it from this that I'm leaning heavily towards supporting at the moment). There are no deal-breakers in my points below, although the three semi-technical points below (points, 1, 3 and 4) and the attribution on the opinions are the key ones.

"the number four player in her class": I'm sure this is common language in the US, but when this article appears on the front page there will be many not from the US (including me!) who are puzzled by what this means. Is there a way it could be reworked to make it understandable?
"She looked up to": in a sport notable for the number of tall people playing, this could be misconstrued (or at least taken for a joke!), " respected" or "admired" would work instead
"her first double-double": Same as the first point here – unintelligible for many. It would be best to give a few words to explain what a "double-double" is, either in the body or as a footnote. Without it, people are likely to click away from this article and possibly not return
"the first triple-double": ditto

For the two points above, the terms are linked to their own article, which explains them (this may be more appropriate than explaining within the article, as with other statistical terms). Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll leave it for you to decide on the point, but a. it will not be understood for most non-US readers (of which there will be a hefty proportion), which means b. people will either click away to find out (and possibly not return) or just stop reading the article and not bother with the rest. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Samantha Logic?

Linked earlier in the body. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should technically just be her last name then, but I think “She surpassed Logic” would be a big mistake, so OK as it is then. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"she repeated as Big Ten Player": Is "she repeated" good formal English in the US? (I ask from a position of ignorance as it wouldn't be in BrEng). I'll leave it to your judgement

Yes. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link for the Nancy Lieberman Award?

Linked earlier in the body. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"[123][124][125][126]" and "[133][134][135][136]": It may be worth WP:BUNDLING the cites here. (My rule of thumb is a maximum of three: it's your call whether you do or don't, but it is helpful for readers

Made changes so there are no more than three consecutive citations. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile section. There are a few opinions given in WP's voice that would be best rephrased to attribute them to an opinion holder ("has great size", "has exceptional range", "Clark is a skilled playmaker")

I mostly left this alone, as the phrases are stated as a fact in the sources, do not seem controversial and may be repetitive if attributed each time. Let me know if this is an issue. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this one is an issue, as it breaches policy. WP:VOICE has “Avoid stating opinions as facts”, which is what we’re doing here. Even if “the phrases are stated as a fact in the sources”, it’s not a fact, it’s an opinion and we need to treat it as such. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I have addressed all points or replied above. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Addressed the remaining issues. Sportzeditz (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article. I've never heard of Ms Clark before this, but you've managed to paint a good and informative picture of her here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

~~Doing. 18:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)>~~
Hang on. @Gog the Mild: If Jo-Joo Eumerus did a source review above, and passed it off at 13:46 today, in answer to your request of 18 minutes earlier, why did you post it at WT:FACIR hours later? (Hence my unnecessary thread here.) ——Serial 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SN, senility. I got interrupted, came back to my laptop to post an article at FACIR, and picked the wrong window. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. I suppose there will be another at some point. ——Serial 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.