Talk:Netball/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Not a good article

I think it was a mistake to grant good article status. I'll ask for removal of GN status after the protection ends, unless there's some major fixes. Some issues are:

1. There is heavy reliance on primary sources. So, we have a huge volume of references to different Netball sporting organizations. They're often used to support trivial details that aren't written about in 3rd party sources, because nobody else really cares. No violations of policy per se, but not good article quality.

   A lot of the excessive detail and POV material has been pruned from the article, and several of the primary sources have been replaced or augmented with secondary sources. As you mention, use of primary sources for straight-forward uncontroversial facts is allowed by policy, so I think most of the remaining uses are acceptable. Do you still see any problematic instances? Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2. The statement "The recognised international governing body of netball is the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA)." is referenced to IFNA itself. IFNA can't be a source about it's own recognition. Also, I think the wording should be improved a bit, to be less definitive, so it doesn't read like they rule all Netball on Earth (proper wording can't be found, until a 3rd party source is found).

   This has been fixed. The Sports Book discusses IFNA's role as the governing body. Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

3. While most poorly sourced claims are non-contentious, and largely harmless, there are some serious claims relying on horrendous sources. For instance, in the info box, it says there are 1.5million netball players. Note #1 is to the Parliament of South Wales. It is simply minutes of parliamentary discussion, where politicians are making speeches. One speaker says 1.2m, and another 1.5m. This page cherry picks the big number. Neither is actually backed up to any reliable source. Both are politicians trying to push an agenda.

   This seems to have been fixed at some point. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Much of the statements suggesting the importance of the sport are to netball organizations, that have an obvious interest in boasting. National sporting organizations have a natural interest to favor their sport over other sports, and their nation over others.

   Are there still any examples of this in the article? Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

5. The stats on registered players are sourced to numerous different sources, using different means of measurement, and with different degrees of reliability. So, we're left with a false comparison of numbers. We're effectively doing synthesis. We should should try to find at least one major source, which covers all the major countries.

   This has been replaced with a minimum composite figure. There doesn't seem to be any source for a definitive worldwide total, so this is probably the best we can do. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

6. The excessive detail, and mass of primary sources, in this article makes it much harder to review the rest of the article. I should not have to wade through 205 references, when less than half are reliable 3rd party sources.

   This seems to be the same as objection #1. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

7. Note 1, which supports the lede says "Unless specified male or mixed teams, all references to netball players are about females. This is because the governing body for the sport has historically prohibited men from competing." This has a few problems. If men are prohibited, or were till some date, than that fact should actually be in the lead of the article, with a citation. Also, if we wish to refer specifically to women in the article, we can just make that clear through the article. We should not assume everyone reads a note. We should never assume somebody reads the whole article. They may just read a piece, and will usually skip the notes.

   This has been revised per feedback. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

8. Why do we have a section for each country, and then after all of those, have a "Domestic leagues" section, which in turns give details of just of a few countries (such as UK)?

   These sections have been condensed into one "Globally" section. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

9. When making potentially contentious statements such as "This is different from many other sports for women in the United Kingdom where men have managed women's sport" we should attribute in the article who is making the statement.

   Statement has been removed. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

10. The statement "Netball is similar to other women's popular sports like softball and lawn bowls in that they are also excluded from the Olympics" So, what? There are both mens and women's sports that aren't in the Olympics. If somebody feels there's a pattern of unfair treatment of sports, because there's women's sports, then find a source that says that, quote them, and attribute the quote.

    This has been removed as well. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

11. Why do we have a sport results table. Does anybody really care that Tanzania placed 4th in 2009? Oddly, Nations Cup (netball) has no table. So, that appears backwards.

    This has been removed. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

12. Is it necessary to list individual countries in the infobox? The infobox is a summary. Find a source that gives us a global count, and use that. If we must list individual countries, can we have a better order/format? Generally, if you sort by a paricular field, you line-up the data on that field, so it's clear. We're alpha sorting by name (mainly), but aligning by the number, so order isn't obvious. Also, personally, I find it looks funny to have the countries of the UK split up. And "Clubs" is in no real order. Why so many countries with members, but so few with clubs? Are we going to keep adding to these lists as info for more countries is found? --Rob (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

    This has been changed to a composite number, which seems to be the best we can do since no total figure can be found in reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to individual points, but just want to say that some of these go beyond the good article criteria (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12). See WP:WIAGA and WP:GACN. However, every point is valid and should be addressed if the article is to be taken further. The GA nomination was a mess, the first went through three reviewers and stretched to about 18 000 words, while the second was far too brief. If you feel that it must go the GAR then you should take it, but editors are actively working on improving this article and we will address your concerns. I feel a GAR would take up more time and create more drama than it would solve AIRcorn (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the recent drama at GAN wouldn't it make more sense to just make these changes rather than worry about the label? Ocaasi ^c 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear form the unanimous fail at FAC where this article stands quality-wise. A WP:GAR from actually uninvolved reviewers is probably warranted down the road. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Good Article status

Some valid points have been brought up about the quality of this article and need to be addressed. To this end I have already trimmed large amounts of information from the Rules & Descriptions and Globally sections. The sourcing issue is a tricky one, for a lot of information secondary sources simply do not exist. In these cases primary sources should be alright as long as they are attributed correctly or the information is not likely to be controversial. Some suggestions to improve the article:

• Registered Players in infobox - This should be the number of players worldwide. I have started looking for sources and have so far found none that provide a global figure. As well as being reliable it also needs to be up-to-date. The best solution I feel would be to use total the associations numbers and have a long note explaining how the total was reached. That or leave it blank. Ditto with clubs.

• Note 1 in the lead - This should go. Just specify in the text if it is talking about male or female players. The rest can be included under history.

• Variants - Convert to prose.

• Governance - Expand.

• Globally - Needs even more trimming. I recommend creating yet another daughter article titled Netball around the world and splitting this section there. The global section should be covered in two paragraphs. The teams, information about major competitions in each area and major events should be the bulk of this section. The history stuff (i.e 1960 netball meeting of Commonwealth countries to try to standardise the rules for the game) could get a short mention, but does not need to be repeated for every country. It should go into greater detail under history.

• International Competitions - Keep the world championship and Commonwealth games tables and move the rest to the appropriate article.

• Domestic Competitions - Merge with or make a section in Globally.

• References - Some sentences are overcited. Generally one good source should be all that is needed for each sentence. I don't like the ref formatting either. I would just have the books in the bibliography and detail the websites, newspapers and other sources in the reference section.

It also needs a good copy edit. I have only done the global and rules sections in any detail, but there were a few grammatical errors and the prose generally consisted of short choppy sentences. I am happy to work through the above points and detail any other major changes along the way. AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To start a few comments on the Olympic section

• Leaving aside the issue of whether an "Olympic recognised sport" is really a classification, whether it is or not the wording would be better as "International Olympic Committee recognised", it is them that do any recognition - The Olympics are an inanimate event.

• File:Netball pictogram.svg should not be used - it is an image created by an editor and in no way relates to the Olympics - it merely tries to look like the official Olympic pictograms (e.g. File:Basketball 2008.png)

• There are multiple POV issues with "Netball is similar to other women's popular sports like softball and lawn bowls in that they are also excluded from the Olympics". 1) it should be sports popular with women - they are not inherently women's sports 2)this ignores sports that are/have been in the Olympics only for women (softball, sychronised swimming) 3)It relies on a source that is 30 years old - a more upto date source is needed to show that this is still true 4)"excluded" implies some kind of bias against women, a better word should be chosen.

Looking at the "International competitions" section I don't think the tables of winners should be included here - take a look at Association football (no FIFA World Cup winners table) and baseball (a FA without a table of World Baseball Classic, World Series or Baseball at the Olympics winners). The GA status is definitely salvagable - you're starting from the much easier position of having to take things away rather than add them. Good luck - Basement12 (T.C) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My recent edits have been questioned at my talk page so I will hold off from any more for now and wait for some more feedback before continuing. AIRcorn (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No more comments and as the GAR has been reopened I will continue with my edits. I will copy edit the Olympic section and then work on the overcite issues. AIRcorn (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So what makes net ball different than basketball

So what makes Netball not the same as basketball? Can we have a table that compares and contrasts them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.39.79 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why not one that contrasts netball with Roller Derby? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Netballers are restricted to certain areas (thirds) of the court and cannot dribble the ball. They can only shoot from inside the circle and the hoop has no backboard. It is not appropriate to compare them in any detail in this article but there are other articles (e.g. Comparison of American football and rugby league) that do compare sports, so there may be a case to create one. It is hard to write these without adding your own ideas though. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In top level basketball very little of significance happens in the centre third of the court. (I've often thought it might as well be abolished, to save space.) In netball, serious action occurs in the centre third. All goals score one point. Only two players on each team are allowed to shoot for goal. Being extremely tall is useful, but not essential for being good at netball. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Aircorn that a comparison of the two sports is not necessary in this article. A Comparison of basketball and netball article is probably warranted, perhaps overdue. With the shared history of the two sports, the article could focus on more than just playing rules, with other sections on history, worldwide popularity, women's participation, etc – all of which would be covered in reliable sources. Similar articles could also be created around korfball and cestoball, all of which have some interrelated history with roots in basketball. Would take a while to work up a decent article, though. – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a comparison of the two sports would not be appropriate for this article (any more than it would be in the Basketball article). A 3rd article comparing the two might be appropriate, but I'm not sure it's within the scope of Wikipedia to do detailed comparisons between different sports. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I removed the header since it was something of a misnomer. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't think of a better heading, so your solution is probably best. AIRcorn (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(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.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; 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. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

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
(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

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References need to be in order. So this is bad: [8][2]	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	This has improved since last time...	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	This article is rambling! This article needs to be in summary style. Further information: WP:SUMMARY	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No issues here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Some of the captions are weak. (Look for: "A player","A netball","Local mixed")	Fail

Result

Result	Notes
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.

TO-DO list for GA round 4

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

[Old Talk]

Prose

• Inconsistent capitalization

Could you give an example? See centre/Centre example below AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Improper capitalization

Centre is the name of a position, centre pass is a type of pass, netball is lowercase unless it is in the name of an organisation or starting a sentence AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Missing articles

The lack of other articles should not affect this ones nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Words do not flow in the lead

I have reread the lead and made some changes. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also made changes to the lead (before Aircorn), thanks Aircorn for improving on it! SarahStierch (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Poor wording in areas (such as "Description and rules")

Can we have some examples of what is poorly wording. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Transitions needed in areas

• What does this mean. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• This mean's I noted transitions could be added in area's to improve flow. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where the flow is bad. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Metric units are incorrectly pluralized in areas

• Fixed what I found AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Words and/or phrases are used repeatedly (e.g. in "Description and rules")

• I am not seeing this, could you give an example. It can be hard to describe the rules of a sport without some form of repetition. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• An example would be "The ball" are the first two words of two consecutive sentences. (bad style and easy to fix) Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Manual of style

• This article is missing elements:

• Further information: WP:FOOTERS, WP:ALSO, and WP:FNNR

Footers are optional, complete articles should not need a see also section and there is a references section AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Considering this article has children articles, these sections are probably needed.

• What ones do you feel are missing AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• These sections are needed because this article must be generalized and call upon it's children. Here are some:

1. Netball
2. Rules_of_netball - This is a good example of how you can enhance this article. This page Rules_of_netball has specific rules. Thus, you should use the appropriate {{further}}, {{see}} or {{details}} template to direct users off there. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this specific example. But I'm still confused. The Rules of netball article, which was originally a spinoff of this article as described in WP:SS, is about 2,670 words; the Netball#Description and rules section here, which uses a {{main}} template pointing to Rules of netball, is about 680 words. It is already a summary of that article. I would think there's room for reasonable people to disagree about how much the summary needs to be condensed; is that what we're stuck on here? Are you saying the summary needs to be even shorter? Or is it something else? -Pete (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. IFNA World Rankings

It already is. See the section Description and Rules. So are Men's Netball and Netball around the World. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This refers to and was meant to be under the Rules_of_netball link above. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Men's netball
2. Netball and the Olympic Movement
3. Netball around the world
4. Netball in Africa
5. Netball in Asia
6. Netball in Europe
7. Netball in Fiji
8. Netball in Indonesia
9. Netball in Niue
10. Netball in Oceania
11. Netball in Samoa
12. Netball in Scotland
13. Netball in the Americas
14. Netball in the Maldives
15. Netball in the Solomon Islands
16. Netball in Tonga
17. Netball in Trinidad and Tobago
18. Rebound (sports)
19. Rules of netball
20. Category:Netball by country
21. Category:Netball competitions
22. Category:History of netball
23. Category:Netball related lists
24. Category:Netball logos
25. Category:Netball organisations
26. Category:Netball people
27. Category:Netball teams
28. Category:Netball trophies and awards
29. Category:Netball variants
30. Category:Netball venues
31. Category:Years in netball
32. Category:Netball stubs
33. Category:Netball templates

• As you can see, Netball can be cut down as long as it provides some links to these pages. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that each of those listed articles should have its own section I have to very strongly disagree. Many are linked in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Aircorn, I'm pretty sure that is not what Don4of4 means. I don't think anyone would propose that each article related to netball needs its own section. However, Don4of4, I'm also a little confused about what you DO mean. Your reference to WP:SS is quite appropriate, but the thing is, the present version of the article grew largely out of an effort specifically to use Summary Style. Many of the articles you linked above are outgrowths of netball; that's why there are {{main}} templates at the top of several sections, and links to articles like Netball in Africa linked throughout the article.

But, I agree with your general sense that there is still some important room for improvement to the article's structure, and the relative level of detail of several sections. It may even be that shortening the article further would be an improvement, but I'm not 100% sure I'd agree with that. But at any rate, a little more specific advice from you would go a long way; as you can see, there are several of us willing to put in some work, but none of us is the original author, and a little guidance about which sections need what kind of work would be very helpful. That's not to say you need to identify every typo or awkward sentence, of course! -Pete (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. You made an attempt to make it summary style... (My PDF version didn't show the "Main" template) In any case, MUCH more information needs to be skimmed off. This article get's too specific. I am adding a section below to assist. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• References must be in order.  Done

• Please double check for me. SarahStierch (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a criteria for Good Articles anyway AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, but it is. "dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;" Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But the guide to layout does not say that they have to be in order. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Broad on its coverage

• This article lacks focus. "This article is rambling! WP:SS"

Not at all helpful without examples. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see a few things that could be improved, though: (1) It may be worth tightening up the "history" §, since there is a separate History of netball article. This is a judgment call, and I haven't yet given it a close reading. (2) Some general text introducing the "Variants" § might be helpful, before the sub-sections; (3) the "men", "transgendered," and "disability" §s should probably be combined somehow and summarized. I believe they were recently all in a "demographics" §, which was removed for good reason..but I think a little more consideration about how to handle this part would be good. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(A quick response to point 3, I will look at the other two when I have time) I agree it would be good to have at least the Transgender and Disabled athletes sections under there own heading. I could not think of an appropriate one before. I considered using "Transgender and Disabled athletes" as a heading, but feel that might not be appropriate (might be seen as equating transgendered with being disabled). Anyone have any ideas? AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Aircorn if you clicked the link, you would see that this article is not in the correct format. I suggest you study WP:SS as this is a CRITICAL ISSUE. This article can shortened by offloading specifics to a separate netball article. (see above) Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Compared to other similar articles this one is quite young not very mature and the lack of Summary Style has been an issue in the past. It does however uses summary style as evidenced by the main tags under most headings. It still has to contain enough information for this article to be comprehensible and to give a reasonable broad overwiew of each topic. I feel it follows summary style reasonably well. AIRcorn (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Strengthen photo captions  Done

• Elaborated as best as I could, added links to other netball articles pertaining to each country. Removed alternate captions ("colored girls" specifically was a bit odd in the youth netball photo).SarahStierch (talk)

Please double check each others work! SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The new review is not very helpful as it is making broad claims without giving specific examples. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for assisting in this. I was pretty confused by the claims too, and I appreciate you putting your thoughts together to quickly (as I was putting it off until tomorrow ;-)...and I'm new to assisting with GA's) SarahStierch (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• The review doesn't go into specifics because it doesn't need to. The article was such a wreck in terms of copy-editing and WP:Summary it's a tragic waste of time for me to transcribe my notes to this page. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not a waste of time because I plus at least two other people think that it is close, if not at, good article quality. If we are not given examples as to why it is a wreck not worth your time then it is hard for us to improve it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Thanks, added to my list of issues. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is something that will need a close look. Good catch. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• Sounds good. I've copied the sentence about the number of IFNA members from the "Governance" section to the "Globally" section, for now. Graham87 01:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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/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)

• Ok, I agree with this. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 19:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That sounds fine with me. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Children section might be better under Rules too. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks! I just renominated, as you've probably seen. -Pete (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

That rename sounds fine to me. However, I'm not so sure about your removal of the "0.7 male" statistic:

“ In 1997, 0.7 percent of the total netball playing population in English schools consisted of males. ”

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)

:::::::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)

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)

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)

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

“ The legacy of netball's 19th century origin as a sport designed for women remains, with female participation far outnumbering men's or mixed-gender play. A 1997 study found that 0.7% of English netball players, while a 2010 article claimed 5,000 male players, or about 1.5%, in Australia. The IFNA recognizes only women's netball for formal competition. … ”

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

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)

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)

GA Review

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)

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)

• Thanks for the review. I am not the nominator, but if no one else picks this up I will respond to your comments as I have time. AIRcorn (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That might be a good idea, since nobody else seems to be moving on this, and I'd hate to fail it considering how close it is to GA. The last edit to the page actually brings up another point I have to add. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem, will look into it this evening. AIRcorn (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It is best to inform the nominator when you have conducted a review as they may longer be watching the talk page. I just dropped a note off at Pete's. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for notifying me Aircorn, I should have time to look at this tonight! I of course welcome your help in improving the article though, feel free to work on it with me. -Pete (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry that I forgot to notify you myself. I'll start striking out things that are done. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)
    • Personally, I dislike citations in the lead and try to avoid them whenever possible. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is anything anyone would consider controversial there. Maybe the years need citing, though I won't argue if you feel they dont. I think the "According to the IFNA" sentence does need verification. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • I added some more commas for better consistency. I didn't change the 3rd example you give above, however, as I'm afraid it would degrade the flow of the sentence. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
    • Good enough explanation for me. I'm not going to require that be changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• "An all transgendered" requires a hyphen.
  • Fixed. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
    • That would work. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, I left the paragraph structure intact, but I believe I have addressed your concerns with this edit. One note, I did not add any citations to the first paragraph (which is now slightly expanded); but since it is an uncontroversial summary of the detailed info that follows (like the overall lead section), I hope that's OK. -Pete (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redlinks do seem to conform to policy.
  • Great, thanks. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • "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)
      • 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)
    • 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)
      • Replace one his/her with their and rewrote the other sentence so it wasn't needed. Unless it is talking about a specific gender version I feel this is the best approach. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
  • I agree -- I'm pretty sure this should not be capitalized. -Pete (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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?
  • I added two citations for the "According to the IFNA" sentence in the lead per the discussion above. I wasn't able to find anything for the Sri Lanka sentence either. Guess we'll have to delete it. :( Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If it can't be attributed, it'll have to be deleted. Is that all that's left outstanding? I'll take another look at the article by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Fixed. That is the reference mentioned above that still can not be verified. Maybe you will have better luck. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, this is the best search string I could come up with, and I came up short; looks like that site is gone without a trace. Ah well :) -Pete (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Great. I have to leave for something so I won't be at a computer for the next few hours, but I'll reevaluate this GA tonight or tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem. Thanks for taking this one on. As you probably relised (and can see by its article history) it has been the source of a surprising ammount of drama. AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I am surprised at that drama. I read some of it to get a background. I'll check out the prose now, but there are (at least) two dead links in the article that need to be addressed: "New netball venture steps forward" and "Indoor Netball at Planet Sports". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, both were archived by the Wayback Machine. I fixed both citations to remove the dead links. -Pete (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Incorrect picture label

the picture of the court incorrectly lables the goal line as "backline". The correct wording is "goal line" the other 2 lines seperating the thirds are called "transverse lines" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.86.185 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Serious problems

This article has serious problems and should be rewritten from scratch. Perhaps you should have someone with real knowledge of the subject create a reliable replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.58.157 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

When saying "Perhaps you should have...", you're actually addressing yourself. Nobody is in charge here, and everyone can edit it. Are YOU in a position to help? HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because he is the socket puppet of a banned user. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)