Template:Did you know nominations/Women's tennis in South Africa

Women's tennis in South Africa

 * ... that South African women's tennis players were prohibited from representing South Africa from 1972 until the 1980s while ITF were allowed to play matches in South Africa?
 * Reviewed: Magic: The Gathering – Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013

Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk), Thine Antique Pen (talk). Nominated by LauraHale (talk) at 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Women's tennis players were not prohibited from representing their country, their country was prohibited from competing in country events (fed Cup and so on) for both men and women, but the women's tennis players were allowed to compete in every other competition, just like players from other countries were allowed to play in South African tournaments. The hook makes it look as if a) this was something specific for the women players and b) there was a juxtaposition between South African's not allowed to play abroad, while others were allowed to play in South Africa, when no such juxtaposition existed. Other problems, nt with the hook but with the article, include things like "During the 1980s and 1990s, South African women's tennis players attended universities and played for the university tennis team; they were the second largest international group recruited to play and making up 10.3% of all foreign players at Division I tennis programs." Perhaps make it clear that this is about US universities only? And "White women continued to actively play the in South Africa in 1938,", but not in 1937 or 1939? And are you honestly using a letter from someone "interested in hockey, swimming, tennis and netball" as a reliable source for "White women continued to actively play the in South Africa in 1938, with international connections developed between players in the country and elsewhere in places like New Zealand. These connections were informal and casual between mutual participants of the sport". Article is of poor quality and shouldn't be highlighted at the front page. Fram (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have performed a copy edit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly sufficient to get this to front page material quality. A very poor article so far. Fram (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that during the 1980s and 1990s, South African women's tennis players attending American universities made up 10.3% of all foreign players in Division I tennis programs?


 * ALT2: ... that in the 1980s South African women tennis players made up 10.3% of all foreign players in U.S. NCAA Division I university tennis?

Date, length o.k. Neutral. No copyvio concern - assume good faith on offline source. I have struck the original hook - not accurate. ALT1 is in the article and in the source, at least for the 1980s, but seems a bit long. I suggest ALT2. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The "at least for the 1980s" point about ALT1 should have been extrapolated further: that while the sentence claims 10.3% for the 1980s and 1990s, in fact the number comes from 1988 data, so it can only be said to refer to that year. That makes it a problematic sentence in the article, and untenable in ALT1; for ALT2, allowing the claim to be "in the 1980s" is also problematic. A hook might be able to say something like "at one point in the late 1980s" safely, but I don't see how you can go further than that, and that sentence in the article needs to be revised to reflect the facts in the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I  tweaked the wording in the article to say "as of 1987", which is what the source says, and suggest ALT3 below. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT3: ... that in 1987 South African women tennis players made up 10.3% of all foreign players in U.S. NCAA Division I university tennis?


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs a review of ALT3 and anything else needed for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I still find ALT3 problematic. The source uses the words "a 1987 estimate suggested", whereas the article and hook present it as concrete fact. Moswento talky 10:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about ALT4 below. I tweaked the article too. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT4: ... that in 1987 South African women tennis players made up about a tenth of the foreign women players in U.S. NCAA Division I university tennis?
 * Unless I've misunderstood the source, shouldn't the word 'women' be removed from the hook? I read the table as saying an estimated 10.3% of all foreign players were women from South Africa...? If you're in agreement, then I will respond with a green tick as the rest of the article now checks out to my eyes. Moswento talky 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You got me wondering, and the source is a bit awkwardly worded, but the percentage is of foreign women. "10.9% of NCAA Division I women tennis players were foreign. Canada was the major donor nation (21%) with South Africa the other major source (see table 12) ... "  Meaning Canada provided 21% of foreign women players, and then the table shows South Africa as 10.3%.  To confirm, if you add up to percentages given in the table, the men add up to 46.8% and the women to 62.8% - combined that would be more than 100%. So the table just shows the top seven countries of origin of men and women players, and then long tails would make up the rest. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Then this is good to go with ALT4. Thanks for explaining that - I did some mental arithmetic and it added up to just under 100%, but clearly I should have used a calculator instead! Moswento talky 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)