Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Lovell

Rachel Lovell

 * ... that Rachel Lovell quit canoeing after failing to make the 2008 Great Britain Olympic team only to immigrate to Australia and become a 2012 Australian Olympic canoeist?
 * Reviewed: Old City Hall (Berlin)

Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk). Self nom at 11:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * *Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough. Article well supported by inline citations. Hook is properly formatted and supported by references. &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping me) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not interested, leave it someone who can review. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me) 04:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. What does this mean?  :(  Did you strike the review because the original review was faulty? --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. After having a look at the individual sources, I'm confused with the hook. I don't have time to have a deeper insight. So leaving it to others. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me) 05:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the article to make things more clear. It looks like this edit removed the sourced material that was there.  Not certain where the confusion is coming from? --LauraHale (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg It's not clear to me that Rachel failed to make the team in 2008: she was pregnant, and the source doesn't even say that, under the circumstances, she even tried out for the team (or at what part in the pre-Olympic process she became pregnant and withdrew). Another source says she was training when she became pregnant, but not whether it was pre- or post-tryouts. I think an ALT hook may be in order. (As it is, there is no cite at the end of the 2008 sentence, which is a requirement for DYK.)


 * On a completely different matter, why "returned to Queensland"? The article makes no mention that she had ever been in Australia prior to 2008, and she had to be in Great Britain before then to be eligible for their 2004 and 2008 teams, right? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't catch that the IP address had done that. I could return to the previous version before the IP address came in and messed with the article to introduce unsourced facts. --LauraHale (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)However, those issues appear to be fixed. The Sun Coast Daily does say that she didn't make the team, once due to injury and once due to pregnancy. The Sun.uk article is the source that (jokingly) implied she was a traitor by moving to Australia. I think with the improvements this is OK to go. Dave (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg No. My issue with the hook has not been addressed, and it still needs to be. "Failing to make" implies that she tried out and wasn't taken, and the best I've been able to find is the Australia Olympic Team site which says she was training for 2008 when she became pregnant: "The next Olympiad she fell pregnant while training for the Beijing Olympic trials." Sounds like she didn't participate in the trials, doesn't it? Sun.uk merely says she quit canoeing "after missing out on a place in Britain’s team for the Beijing Games", but not how she did so. An ALT hook is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the source, "The British-born athlete twice attempted to secure a berth in the British Olympic squad for 2004 and 2008, but her chances were thwarted by injury and then pregnancy." I don't see the problem, "thwarted" vs "failing to make" I don't see those two statements as that different. Dave (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of athletes who are aiming for the Olympics, but never even make it to the trials; this isn't the same thing as competing in the trials and not being selected. Although the source you cite is vague, the Team's site is not: she was still training and not yet at the trials when she became pregnant. Some sources take short cuts with the facts, and cannot be relied on for details; this is the case here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that Rachel Lovell retired from canoeing after missing selection for the 2008 Summer Olympics with the Great Britain team only to immigrate to Australia and become a 2012 Australian Olympic canoeist?


 * Alt proposed. --LauraHale (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Closer, but there's something about the phrasing that's a little ambiguous: it's possible to read it that the whole team missed 2008 and Rachel with them. Here's a shot at another version:
 * ALT2: ... that after Rachel Lovell pregnancy ended her quest to be a British canoeing Olympian in 2008, she retired, immigrated to Australia, and has become a 2012 Australian Olympic canoeist?
 * Note that this will require a mention of the pregnancy with the appropriate source link in that part of the article if you decide to go with it. I'll check back in the morning to see what you've decided. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Article changed to include pregnancy. Fine with alt2.  I'd prefer to have alt1 because it feels a bit sexist to say the interesting thing about her is that she's a mother. : / But I'll take alt2 in order to get it passed. --LauraHale (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sexist to say that she had retired due to impending motherhood (which would have prevented her from competing at a level needed for the Olympics) but qualified for the Olympics four years later? Um, okay. I don't want to force this on you, and the wording added to the article strikes me as problematic for the reasons I've just noted to Dave above, so how about this non-pregnant alternative:
 * ALT3: ... that although Rachel Lovell retired from canoeing prior to Great Britain's trials for its 2008 Summer Olympics team, she immigrated to Australia and became a 2012 Australian Olympic canoeist? —BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Good with ALT3. --LauraHale (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT3 needs independent approval; since I proposed it, I cannot also pass it. Maybe Dave? Have struck original hook plus ALT1 and ALT2, the former two because of objections, and the last because creator wasn't happy with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the hook contains no new information from earlier hooks, and has already been verified information by a reviewer, I await BlueMoonset's passage of it as I see nothing in Bluemoonsunset's actions that preclude approving a hook like this. --LauraHale (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bluemoonset respectfully has no intention of approving a hook that he wrote, which is not so close as all that to the original hook. WP:DYKSG, H3 (also WP:DYKBN, B3), not to mention the Reviewing guide, are quite clear that a person should not review his or her own ALT. I also do not understand the rush: this article has been requested to appear on August 5, and cannot in any event be promoted to a prep area for well over 48 hours. (Note that someone else will also have to promote the hook; I'll be sure to stay out of the way so it can be done.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 is good to go. Thine   Antique   Pen  08:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)