Template:Did you know nominations/Steven Clarke (Canadian football)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Steven Clarke (Canadian football)

 * ... that gridiron football player Steven Clarke was a plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that college athletes are entitled to compensation for the use of their images?


 * Reviewed: Eadwine Psalter
 * Comment: The biggest concern with this hook is neutrality, which is why I've avoided any mention of the NCAA and noted that the lawsuit was unsuccessful. I do think this lawsuit should be the focus of the hook, as it's the most interesting thing about Clarke. I'm particularly interested in ensuring that this hook is as neutral as it can be before it is promoted, and any suggestions or specific comments addressing that would be appreciated.

Created by BU Rob13 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New article nominated on time that is long enough, neutral, cited, and without close paraphrasing concerns. I think the "unsuccessful" part can be omitted, as it can be viewed as negative, and anyways gives more reason to the reader to open up the article for details. Also, I'd move remove mention of the compensation, as it makes it come off as greedy (people might come to that conclusion on their own).  Also the current article and sources don't make it clear that the lawsuit directly asked for compensation.  I have no legal background, so I'm shying away any statement that seems to get into questionable legal interpretations—like medical news, a lot of law is misinterpreted by the general media. Perhaps just mention that they alleged that their image was used without their permission?  Or I can add an ALT and have someone else review.—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing about the hook, for those knowledgeable about sports at least, is that the NCAA has strongly opposed providing any compensation whatsoever to college athletes despite the industry being worth billions. They've even made claims stating universities don't make money off of athletics, so can't afford to pay athletes, despite the huge amount of revenue coming in from televising games. I'm actually concerned about neutrality in the other direction (i.e. not giving the NCAA a fair shake), which is why I included "unsuccessful" in an attempt to swing things back in favor of the NCAA.
 * Public opinion on the payment of college athletes is generally very in favor of the athletes (see John Oliver's take, for instance). For this reason, I don't think the perception of greed is a serious concern. I've removed unsuccessful from the hook. Compensation is now included in the article, and it is sourced in ref 9, in the copy of the lawsuit at the bottom. See page 38, which reads "That a judgment be entered for Plaintiffs and Class Members against Defendants for the amount of all general damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class". I certainly don't want to dismiss your concerns, but I wanted to make sure you have all the context before I break out the less interesting alts. If you still feel the same way, let me know, and I'll start looking at an alternative fact. ~ RobTalk 00:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, at least the compensation part can be sourced. It would be good if a secondary source directly supported this, otherwise cite the primary source of the court case with the page number (direct quote in the citation itself wouldn't hurt either).  The hook still needs some work, as alleged doesn't seem right as currently worded. Allege implies that something was done wrong, e.g. improper use of image; it's not correct to use allege with respect to the corrective action sought. Also, the lawsuit is not for all college athletes, but I believe only for football and men's basketball. Should also mention class-action in the hook.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that gridiron football player Steven Clarke was a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit claiming that college athletes are entitled to compensation for the use of their images?
 * I've now cited a Variety article saying they sought "unspecified damages", and have offered an ALT 1 edited to include class action. I've changed alleging --> claiming. Thanks for picking up on that. It was a poor choice of words. I honestly am not sure how they defined their class legally, but the media reported on it as a college athletes v. NCAA thing. Even if the class they happened to represent was smaller than college athletes due to matters of legal feasibility, the articles indicate that their claims were that student athletes should get paid. See the quote in ref 10, for instance.
 * If you think I need to include specific conferences of players included in the class, then I will likely have to scrap this hook, as that would become far too long. ~ RobTalk 03:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per AP: "The lawsuit wants a class action for all current and former players in the Football Bowl Subdivision and Division I men's basketball." Not saying it needs to be in the hook, just that "college athletes" is not supported.—Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm reading it a different way. I'm thinking of the actual legal argument used, which applies to all college athletes, while you're thinking of the parties in this specific lawsuit. I've proposed an ALT below, but I think the extra wording sounds odd and implies something different than what the lawsuit's argument is. ~ RobTalk 11:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that "student athletes" in the lawsuit is used as shorthand: "Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class of all other current and former players at the Football Bowl Subdivision (“FBS”) and NCAA Division I Men’s basketball level (collectively “Student Athletes”) ..."—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that gridiron football player Steven Clarke was a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit claiming that some college athletes are entitled to compensation for the use of their images?
 * I'm not keen on "some college athletes". How about "... class action lawsuit that sought compensation for the alleged use of college athletes' images without their consent?"   It avoids the previous issues of quantifying which college athletes are affected, referring only to the "improper use".—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Better than mine, but technically the athletes did consent. Their argument was that the contract was unenforceable and anti-competitive. How about this instead? I'm not keen on possessives in hooks where they can be avoided, but I think the alternative is worse in this particular case. ~ RobTalk 23:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT3: ... that gridiron football player Steven Clarke was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that sought compensation for the alleged improper use of college athletes' images?
 * I'm not sure if more leeway should be given because it's already stated that it's a lawsuit, but I'm wondering if it should be "alleged improper use", especially since the case has already been decided in the defendant's favor. Is there a specific reason to exclude it?—Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, that was a typo on my part. I'm strongly in favor of including it, actually. ~ RobTalk 00:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 is good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)