2022 AFL Women's season 7 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. Review: January 27, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from 2022 AFL Women's season 7 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The match results for Friday, 2 September (5:00 pm) Melbourne vs North Melbourne at the Melbourne Cricket Ground quotes an official crowd of 17,851. This is misleading as it was a double header event. This is also mentioned as the highest crowd in the infobox, whereas clearly it is an AFL crowd, not an AFLW crowd.The reader only finds this out in the notes below, however there should be a very clear footnote that unlike the other matches of the round this is not a standalone crowd. Because the match would otherwise not have been held at the MCG. Rulesfan (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
In order to access the AFLW game, tickets to the Melbourne-Sydney men's final will need to be purchased.
Personally I think this puts the issue BEYOND DOUBT>
https://www.zerohanger.com/dees-roos-date-destined-for-gs-bright-lights-126271/
Roos and Dees fans will be asked to pay AFL Finals prices for a ticket to the clash.
Perhaps you could consider using independent sources instead of just AFLW sources.
--Rulesfan (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
My two cents: Rulesfan is right to challenge how this crowd figure is portrayed. It's self-evident that curtain-raiser crowd numbers are not very meaningful because the crowd filters in gradually, and some proportion don't see more than a few minutes of play. Does anyone actually know the method by which this official crowd figure was calculated – if it's based on a progressive number of turnstile clicks when the final siren sounded (which is my guess), then it's a pretty pointless number. In any case, I believe it warrants some level of disclaimer/qualification, and my approach has always been to append the letters C-R to any curtain raiser crowd (see 1985_VFA_season#Finals_2 for example), as an easy way to tell readers that while the number they're reading is based an official count, the majority of that crowd was not present for the whole game. That is what I'd recommend doing here.
With regard to the 'highest attendance' box, the appropriate thing to do is just put the highest official crowd without disclaimer. Infoboxes are by design intended to be simple and stand-alone, and they are not the place to go through detailed disclaiming of statistics.
One more point: sometimes we need to take a more encyclopedically precise approach to the terminology we use than the sources we reference. I take issue with the term 'doubleheader' being thrown around very liberally in media, and being used here; there is a clear difference between a genuine double-header (two headline acts of equal standing) and a curtain-raiser/headliner pairing – this match, by virtue of this being a ticketed AFL Men's final, is clearly the latter. Aspirex (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of references which say 'curtain raiser' rather than 'double header', [1] [2] [3], so verifiability isn't an issue for any future article quality review. I'd be comfortable leaving the crowd figure unannotated, but changing double-header to curtain raiser in the gamenote. Aspirex (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
May I ask why the win loss table is not consistent with other AFLW and AFLM articles? RoryK8 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Likewise with the ladder progression when a perfectly good format is used in the AFLM articles, it's a bit jarring. Specifically the blue colour. RoryK8 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
No other issues.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Overall:
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.
Tagging Casliber, Sportsfan77777 and Teratix – would you guys (and/or others) potentially be interested in another pre-FA review? Thought I'd reach out given you guys and Hawkeye7 were the ones who helped out last time, for Daisy Pearce. As above, there's also a discussion happening at WikiProject level regarding the sequencing of sections in Australian rules football season articles – which affects this article – so would be keen to get your thoughts there as well, if interested; thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply