If she is only notable because she was a high school athlete, I think the lead should better represent that (focus on that) than it does now. – Editør (
talk)
07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The article is full of information which is trivial in nature. And her time as an athlete during high school, at least as it is conveyed through what's been written here, is not particularly notable.
SlimeSeason5 (
talk)
16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Editør, I must say that as a page creator of about 1500 WP pages, I find this procedure quite odd. Something like this usually starts as a
WP:PROD,
WP:CSD or
WP:AFD. The purpose of the
WP:LEAD is not to justify
WP:N, it is to summarize the main body. The main body can only exist if there are facts supported by
WP:RS, which are usually presented as
WP:ICs. As long as a couple of those ICs are primarily about her she passes
WP:GNG. You are confusing importance and notability. There are probably more important subjects who fail
WP:GNG. By passing GNG, she is notable whether or not she meets your subjective assessment of her importance.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry if I was unclear in making my point. You say that she is notable as an athlete. Then why is she not identified as "former athlete" first instead of third and why isn't half of the lead about her accomplishments in sports? – Editør (
talk)
01:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Editør, Again, I repeat very odd discussion. I think you are quibbling about something. The article says former athlete in the
MOS:FIRST sentence. I believe that opening
WP:LEAD sentences often describe the current or most recent role first. E.g.,
Phil Jackson and
Pat Riley are not as notable for the first item mentioned in their LEADs as other roles. The LEAD summarizes every section of the article as it should. What the heck are you quibbling about?-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
11:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
You don't seem to take my comments as constructive criticism, so I don't want to further contribute to this discussion. If the lead is not improved, I recommend to the reviewer to fail this nomination. Please don't contact me again about this article. – Editør (
talk)
11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't fully understand the history here, but I'm going to call this yet another abandoned review by Eurohunter and close it out per
WP:GAN/I#N4a which will allow a new reviewer to start from scratch and get this moving again.
RoySmith(talk)17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)reply
If she is only notable because she was a high school athlete, I think the lead should better represent that (focus on that) than it does now. – Editør (
talk)
07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The article is full of information which is trivial in nature. And her time as an athlete during high school, at least as it is conveyed through what's been written here, is not particularly notable.
SlimeSeason5 (
talk)
16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Editør, I must say that as a page creator of about 1500 WP pages, I find this procedure quite odd. Something like this usually starts as a
WP:PROD,
WP:CSD or
WP:AFD. The purpose of the
WP:LEAD is not to justify
WP:N, it is to summarize the main body. The main body can only exist if there are facts supported by
WP:RS, which are usually presented as
WP:ICs. As long as a couple of those ICs are primarily about her she passes
WP:GNG. You are confusing importance and notability. There are probably more important subjects who fail
WP:GNG. By passing GNG, she is notable whether or not she meets your subjective assessment of her importance.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry if I was unclear in making my point. You say that she is notable as an athlete. Then why is she not identified as "former athlete" first instead of third and why isn't half of the lead about her accomplishments in sports? – Editør (
talk)
01:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Editør, Again, I repeat very odd discussion. I think you are quibbling about something. The article says former athlete in the
MOS:FIRST sentence. I believe that opening
WP:LEAD sentences often describe the current or most recent role first. E.g.,
Phil Jackson and
Pat Riley are not as notable for the first item mentioned in their LEADs as other roles. The LEAD summarizes every section of the article as it should. What the heck are you quibbling about?-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
11:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
You don't seem to take my comments as constructive criticism, so I don't want to further contribute to this discussion. If the lead is not improved, I recommend to the reviewer to fail this nomination. Please don't contact me again about this article. – Editør (
talk)
11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't fully understand the history here, but I'm going to call this yet another abandoned review by Eurohunter and close it out per
WP:GAN/I#N4a which will allow a new reviewer to start from scratch and get this moving again.
RoySmith(talk)17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)reply