Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993)


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993)

 * ... that Tony Parker scored a career-high during the 2015 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament to help UCLA advance to the Sweet 16 for the second straight year?
 * ALT1:... that Tony Parker was the first basketball player in Georgia in nearly two decades to start for four straight state champions?
 * Reviewed: 2015 Chapel Hill shooting

Created by Bagumba (talk). Self nominated at 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I'm new to reviewing, so I'll just point out a few things and let someone else determine whether the page is eligible for nomination. The page is long enough for a new article, but has not been promoted to a Good Article (it has a C-Class rating). Does this influence the nomination? I found both hooks referenced in the text. The page seems to be written neutrally, but I wonder a little about close paraphrasing. It may just be that the page contains a lot of statistics on the player and there is no other way to word the information. SojoQ (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  Welcome, and thanks for helping out at DYK. Per Did you know point 1a, an article is considered new if it "is no more than seven days old". Point 1g, being a GA, is an alternative way to be considered "new"—it is not a requirement. For statistics, bear in mind that WP:LIMITED suggests: "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using titles and technical term, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact." At any rate, it would be best if you cite for discussion the specific examples for which you have paraphrasing concerns. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the clarifications. I went back to the article for a second look. I'm certain what I was seeing was just repetition of facts. SojoQ (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * here is a handy tool for checking for close paraphrasing. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Both hook refs are verified and cited inline. However, it's not clear to me what the "career high" is in the first hook. Right now that hook is 163 characters; you have enough space to put in the points and rebounds totals. Also, the QPQ you submitted is not a full review, but a hook suggestion. Do you have another QPQ to submit? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the help. SojoQ (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. "Scoring" typically refers to the number of points accumulated in a sport (see score (game)). I think that is generally understood, even in laymen's terms. In the article, it states: "On March 21, 2015, in the 2015 NCAA Tournament, Parker scored a career-high 28 points ..." I don't think the number of rebounds is essential to the hook (it was not a career-high), but you can suggest an ALT2 with it included if you feel it is better. As far as the QPQ, part of the review process is suggesting alternative hooks if the reviewer feels it is an improvement.  Per Did you know/Reviewing guide: "Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook." As it was an attempt to help reduce the nomination backlog as well as improve the existing hook (it would have been conflict of interest for me to have accepted my own suggested alt hook), I feel it sufficiently satisfies the QPQ requirement.  Let me know if I am misinterpreting something in the process. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk)
 * OK on the hook, then; I am a layperson when it comes to basketball. My understanding of the QPQ rules is that you have to do more than just suggest a hook. If someone has done an initial evaluation of the five main DYK criteria but doesn't finish the review for some reason, that's also acceptable. Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did check the newness and paraphrasing, but did not think to mention it in my review as 1) I knew I would not be in position to continue review of the DYK once I suggested an ALT, and 2) I assumed a new reviewer would need to evaluate and sign off on the main criteria themselves as opposed to relying on the good faith review of another reviewer. I can respect your concern that I might be trying to game the system, but you can review my DYK history and see that I rarely suggest hooks to "easily" satisfy QPQ. Thanks for your consideration, and I'll respect your decision on how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK, I accept your explanation for the QPQ. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)