Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark of the Year/archive2

Mark of the Year[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I listed this article for Peer Review once already and after all the problems were fixed, I nominated it for FL status. I believed that candidacy was closed prematurely and during that time I have not received the proper feedback on whether or not this article has attained FL. I'm re-listing this article for PR once more, because I wish to fix all the issues once and for all. This article is of high quality, comprehensive and I'm quite adamant to get it to FL. Any feedback would be invaluable.

Thanks, Flewis^(talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I read the article / list, the previous peer review and the FLC. I do not know about AFL and do not normally edit sports articles, but here are some suggestions for improvement. My first two concerns are with copyright abuse.

Per WP:NFCC how are you able to justify nine fair use images (the logo and eight mark images)? This seems excessive - what do all of the images of marks add to the article to justify fair use?

These pictures within the article are all unique historic images that highlight a historically important [Australian] event. Also, as has been mentioned multiple times in PR and FA, this topic is largely unknown amongst the non-Australian population, and the supporting images convey the actions and visual identifications which words cannot describe. (Also please note: Each of the pictures are also embedded within the articles of the respective footballers that they display, as a means of identification, along with the enhancement of the prospective readers' encyclopedia experience.) --Flewis^(talk) 07:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me I see 8 images of players catching balls. I am not sure most people could identify the athletes from the images used. Please see NFCC 3a "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This may be a concern at FLC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned with the large number of references to YouTube. Again the concern is that the videos are almost certainly not posted by the copyright holders, and linking to copyright volations is not allowed. I watched two videos and both appeared to be taken from television broadcasts, but the poster seemed not to be an official network. This was raised as a concern at FLC too. Is Australian copyright law different?

Yes, the Australian copyright law is different is some respects. The Australian copyright council states for film and media that people can reproduce TV and radio programs for purposes, such as research or study. However I failed to find an exact copyright pertaining to synthesis of sport broadcasts. The question mainly lies in whether the internet is considered private or public domain, as one generally accesses the content in private. From my immediate knowledge, the only Australian regulations dealing with internet + copyright are the "Internet censorship laws in Australia" [1], and these are mainly in regard to ISP's and internet censorship --Flewis^(talk) 07:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave that to people more knowledgable on copyright law than I am. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs a copyedit to clean up the prose in spots. For example, just the first sentence of the lead The Mark of the Year[1] (officially known as the Toyota AFL Mark of the Year)[2] is an annual competition run by the Australian Football League (AFL) that celebrates the best Australian Rules Football mark (where a player cleanly catches a kicked ball that has travelled more than 15 metres without anyone else touching it or the ball hitting the ground) of that particular season through the annual Mark of the Year competition.[3] is too long and a run-on sentence, and needlessly repeats annual competition. There are also typos like a missing space in which recognizes the best the best goals kicked in the VFL[ ](Victorian Football League) /AFL during that season.[2] It should be "Victorian Football League (VFL)" too - spell out the name first, then give the abbreviation.

See below comment --Flewis^(talk) 08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea which comment is meant Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the lead meets WP:LEAD. It could probably be two paragraphs instead of one. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the definition of a mark is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - check this. Please see WP:LEAD

I've revamped the prose, and split the majority of its information into a new section. The prose now serves a general summary and introduction for the article. --Flewis^(talk) 08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sentence The winner of this competition is usually the most spectacular high mark, known as a 'specky', but occasionally it is awarded to courageous, one handed or diving marks. needs a reference. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. This is also a one sentence paragraph that should be combined with another or possibly expanded.

Still no ref, still a one sentence paragraph. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article expalin why there was no Mark of the Year in 1971 or 1972?

I'm not sure whether or not this would be a block to FA status, however I simply cannot find any info on this whatsoever. Back in the 70's, this competition was largely informal, and may not have been recorded down as such.--Flewis^(talk) 07:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going for WP:FLC (not WP:FAC, isn't it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the name / sponsorship is a more recent development - what was it originally called, when did Toyota become the sponsor?
This is an Australian article, so the spellings should follow Australian English spelling rules (regardless of what Google hits say on common spellings). This was also raised at FLC.

Alerted prospective editors [2] --Flewis^(talk) 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows almost nothing about this sport, I think there could be a bit more background about the mark. See WP:PCR I would also watch out for jargon - many of the names in the table make little sense to me (they are linked, but again perhaps a brief section explaining the various kinds of marks (instead of just linking over and over to Spectacular mark). See WP:JARGON

These are all covered by their respective articles along with Mark_(Australian_Football)#Types_of_marks --Flewis^(talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is cleaned up, I would ask the FLC reviewers to look at it again and see if their concerns have been addressed. It is an interesting article and fairly well done, just needs some polishing to meet FLC criteria.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This still has many (7 or more) short paragraphs of one or two paragraphs that break up the flow of the article and should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded. Several of these also have no refs. Looks better, but still seems to need work before FLC, see my comments above too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]