Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cynna Kydd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cynna Kydd[edit]

I think I've done about as much as is possible with this one. I've had in the works for more than two months, and it's the first serious attempt I've had at getting something featured in more than a year. Nothing much was raised in peer review, and it's been getting good feedback whereever I've raised it. Ambi 02:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the only minor gripe is I'd love to see a bigger image, but content is king and my support is behind this nomination. -- Longhair 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would it be possible to get more free images for this? enochlau (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick explanation for why the image is smaller: I could only find one image of the lady, and that was copyrighted. To satisfy fair use I had to change it in size. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Like most Americans, the sport and the star are entirely unknown to me. Thus, I'm possibly a good audience member. What I didn't get from the article is the measure of the person outside of a very, very narrow context. This is not a subject matter complaint, because I have no stance on the subject matter whatever. Rather, I couldn't get a feel for how important the figure is, whether she has had a wider career or not, whether she has been celebrated in the nation rather than merely the sport or not, whether her successes or treatment led to changes in policy or audience for the sport. In a sense, I felt like I was only getting an account of a sportswoman in a sport. I would like for a wider context and more depth, but I am not objecting. (The sentence structures could be varied a bit, as there is a bit too much reliance on to-be verbs, but that's just a suggestion for improvement and not a complaint.) Geogre 04:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a bit tricky. From what I understand, she is pretty important in the Netball world, can't say much about her outside of this. However, wouldn't stating her importance be seen as pushing a POV? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - has lots of great references for the reader to look up, and a good picture. I think it is up there with other sporting articles. Told me all I needed to know even though I've never heard of her before (shows how netball is a minority sport!). --EuropracBHIT 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Object:This is a very good general Wikipedia article, but Like Geogre above I don't feel this article is comprehensive enough to be a FA. It does not tell us much about her as a person in a wider context. I assume some-one who knows about these things feels that the image is fair use or whatever. It is also quite short, with all those references there must be a lot more to say. Further images would be nice but they are always a problem to find with a living subject. Giano | talk 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What wider context? I'm afraid if I'm to act on this I'm going to need a bit more information. Ambi 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about that, for a bio the page is very limited to what must be just one facet of her life. In 25 years she must have done something other than play netball. For example - It mentions she is getting married - to whom? - does she collect stamps? If she is a well known public figure (ie notable) there must be quite a bit more information about her. Giano | talk 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's disputable that she's notable - she's a national representative and former national MVP, and a Factiva search comes up with quite a bit over a thousand hits for her. Yet she simply hasn't done anything overly notable off court. She went to high school, and played netball. She went to university, and played netball. She was unemployed for the best part of a year, and played netball. What little off-field information there is to know is already mentioned, as is the identity of her partner. It seems like you're asking me to find information on things that not only do I not have anything about, but that didn't happen, which isn't really actionable. Ambi 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One needs to think outside the square a little here. Netball isn't a major sport worldwide, it isn't a popular sport for male participation, and it isn't a sport we all sit down regularly at the tv to cheer on and watch. Cynna Neele has achieved, and if Netball (I don't play it, but my mother did, and she's not sporty at all - anymore) can be brought just that little bit closer to the limelight it probably deserves, then that's not a bad thing. I'd still prefer another image though :) -- Longhair 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate what you are saying, but FAC is not here to give publicity to a sport. Perhaps a good FA could be written about Australian netball, including potted "sporting biographies"of its current and past stars, thus publicising the sport in that way. Giano | talk 09:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano, I must strongly disagree with your comment that this bio is just there to promote Netball. Why, you could use the same argument for Chris Mullin (basketball) for basketball! (not that it needs promoting...). I can't see how this article can be expanded any further in its own right - though of course there may be a few tweaks that can be made. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not referring to the bio being here to promote netball, but Longhair's remark "if Netball .... can be brought just that little bit closer to the limelight it probably deserves, then that's not a bad thing". Yes it would be a good thing, but promoting "a life story" with few details of that life is not going to achieve that object. Giano | talk 09:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other point I was going to make is, how many Netball players edit Wikipedia? The sport is possibly more popular than most of us would ever know. -- Longhair 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has that to do with this FAC? Giano | talk 10:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano, objections must be actionable. You're asking me to provide information, not that I don't have, but on things that simply haven't occurred, as I've explained here and on your talk page. I don't care if you don't want the article featured, but I'm prepared to fix any actionable objections if you choose to give any. Ambi 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano - beyond the name of her fiance (which is now included in the article) - do you have any specific facts that are not mentioned? "Tell me more about this person" is a bit too vague to be actionable, IMO. Raul654 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK: Tell us all about the person. A biography is a life story, not just an article covering a person's career. Private life may seem intrusive to some, but it's the price of fame (rightly or wrongly), but that is just one aspect which is missing. If a person is so young, that they have only achieved success in one limited field, or as is probably the case here little information is easily available then perhaps it is too soon to write a biography. Most sporting personalities even young ones, campaign against drugs - take drugs - help deprived children - murder their granny anything, even just excel at needlework at school (she did attend school?) Does she have parents, or was she the result of immaculate conception? There must be more to tell us, if not, then it's too soon. Giano | talk 09:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but this is a biography of her life to date - not just her career. She hasn't taken drugs, or if so, there is no evidence of it. She hasn't campaigned against drugs. She hasn't murdered her grandmother. Yes, she went to school, and all those details are covered in the article. Yes, she has parents. I could, I suppose, add that she worked for her parents business as a child, but I didn't think it fitted in with the text in the first paragraph. Apart from that, there simply isn't anything to tell - which means, in essence, your objection is unactionable. Every article is supposed to be featurable, and you have no right to judge when or when not someone is "deserving". Ambi 11:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not judging if or not she is deserving, just questioning if all facts are included. You have just mentioned one or two more which you apparently knew, and chose not to include in the article. So you're argument that all available information is in the article is not strictly accurate is it? A biography is just that - a biography and should not record just the selected highlights of someone's life. Why not rename the page "Cynna Neale's career in netball", because at the moment that is all it is. Can you see where I am coming from now? Giano | talk 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've questioned whether all facts have been included in the article, and you've been told - repeatedly - that they have. There were two facts that I thought could possibly be included in the article, but felt didn't fit. Everything else is in this article. This isn't "Cynna Neele's career in netball" - it's "Cynna Neele", which is why it covers her childhood and her time at university as well. It's just that, as that's about all she's done apart from play netball, there's really not a lot else to say. If you are so certain that there are some saucy facts that I'm overlooking or have somehow missed, then why don't you go research it? Otherwise, please take my word for it that nothing else happened (at least, nothing encyclopedic) that has not already been raised. Ambi 10:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can facts about someone's life not fit into their biography. It is not for you to present your view, with selected information, of a person. The encyclopedic thing is to report all facts. It's quite obvious this person has done nothing "saucy" (you're words not mine) but, your statement above concerning omitted facts "I didn't think it fitted in with the text in the first paragraph" concerns me, its up to you to report facts - not expect peoples lives to fit in with your text. Giano | talk 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 18 red links are too many for a FA. bogdan 13:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been working on these for a couple of days now, and I've managed to get it down to five, having created somewhat-useful stubs on most of them. I'm sure I'll have it down even lower by the time this FAC finishes, but I'm getting pretty sick of mass stub-creation by now. :) Ambi 10:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - although I find the following sentence a bit confusing: "While she may have been able to join the vastly more successful Melbourne Phoenix team upon leaving the AIS, she chose to return to the Kestrels." Was she able to join the Phoenix or not? Aside from that, a good article. - Mark 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've chopped the sentence out - the source was a little too vague to make anything more of it. Ambi 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is filled with links of various years that aren't relevant: see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Only years that at least have a month should be linked, of which most aren't, and those that don't have any specific dates are linked. AndyZ 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking of years is the subject of heavy debate at the moment, and it's being shown that there's very little consensus on the topic, so I think it can hardly be considered a featured article criterion either way. Ambi 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extensive content, well structured and sourced. Dysprosia 14:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Weak Object. Good effort but its not quite there yet. The image needs a caption and frame, but its a bad image in the first place - it has JPEG defects and it's small - is it impossible to find a better and larger photo? Also, as others have said, I think the article needs more on the biography side than just her career (netball). An external links section would be nice. At the moment I have this feeling that tells me this isn't an example of Wikipedia's best work, which a featured article is meant to be. Are there any other good netball player articles and we can compare this one to? — Wackymacs 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK it looks better now, so I've changed my vote from 'Weak Object' to 'Support' because Ambi changed a few things, good work! — Wackymacs 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wackymacs, can you find a better PD image? That image was resized and made lower quality to satisfy fair use criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of an image is not a barrier to being a FAC, is it? Andjam 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) I'll add the image caption promptly, but there's nothing we can do about the image - I'm completely limited by what I can find that I can use as fair use. I'm being hampered here by the fact that it's the offseason - so the earliest I could take a photo myself is when the Kestrels play in my home city on June 16, or when I stay with my family for the mid-2006 holidays. I give my word I'll get some better images then, but there's really nothing I can do now, and I don't think it's worth delaying featuring purely for that. 2) As I've previously tried to explain, there's just not anything more to say on the biography side of things. I'm not deliberately keeping her personal life out of the article - she just hasn't had one that's particularly encyclopedic. You've got to keep in mind that I'm writing about someone who is only 24. All she's ever done that's at all encyclopedic is go to school and play netball, and what little else there is (such as getting married) is already in the article. If you can come up with something specific, I'm happy to add it, else I'm afraid, as with Giano, that bit is unactionable. 3) I thought about creating an external links section, but there's just not anything good enough (that I've been able to find) - any profileish mention of her on a website is usually shared with about ten other players on the same page. 4) Good netball player articles? Hah. Everything else is either a stub or doesn't exist, which is why I'm trying to set this up as a template to follow in the future. :) Ambi 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a problem with the article not mentioning much about her personal life. I feel that talking about people's personal life (unless it is notable) can be a bit unencyclopedic, so not doing so is not a negative.Andjam 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great work! I helped copyedit the article, but can't see much else that needs to be added. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Only years that have dates or months with them should be linked, see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. A couple of other terms used are awkward; for example, "difficult opponent" should be changed to a good player or something like that. "She was persistently among" - constantly works better. ...extended national squad at the end of the season, and finally survived the cut... - comma is unneeded. That sentence is also too long and has to be broken down. ...in the national league, saw her selected in the starting squad... -saw her should be changed to she was. These are just a few occurring in the Futhering her career section. More copyediting has to be done such that the writing "exemplifies our very best work". Many of the subtitles names don't seem to be the best to fit: "furthering her career", "from slumps and injuries" (which seem to should be combined under one section since the information in the latter fits into the former). My final objection probably lies on the article’s size. It seems rather short for FA status, but I guess that isn’t ground for objection. The lead is also slightly short for FA status. Other than that, this article is pretty good. AndyZ 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I'm going to have to object to most of this objection, though I've fixed a couple of things that make sense. The policy you cite has no consensus support whatsoever - try go around eliminating links to years en masse and watch how quickly you get blocked. With this in mind, I'm disclined to remove them simply because someone says so - I don't think this can realistically be considered a featured article criteria. I disagree with your first and third copyediting suggestions, but I've fixed the second and fourth ones. I also strongly disagree with your suggestion regarding dividing the article up - if we did that, it'd effectively amount to removing nearly all section headings from this article, making it one long slab of text. Ambi 01:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument about the relevant links was being brought up in some of the other FACs, so I figure I'd bring it up here. Second, I didn't really suggest dividing up the article and removing all of the section headings; I was putting it in as a suggestion since the "from slumps and injuries" section technically is all a part of "furthering her career". Both images should have a succint captions, the first one is a bit too long and the second one doesn't have one. AndyZ 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see where you're going, but the way I saw it, "furthering her career" covered her rise, and the other section covered her (more recent) fall. I've fixed the caption issue, anyway. :) Ambi 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The other thing is as brought up before that the information might not be able to keep up with the actual article as time continues. Other than that, I still feel there is something about the relative shortness of the article. Unfortunately, that is pretty difficult to do, seeing the arguments above, so I won't really consider that too much right now. Finally, as commented below, "main article" should be changed to "details" or "background" appropriately. AndyZ 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I give my word I'll keep it up to date - I've gone to all the effort in writing it, so the least I can do is check back through the news results every few weeks. I'm sure it won't be quite as short when she's thirty, if Wikipedia is still around. I'm not sure what you mean by "main article" though. Ambi 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a great article. Sure, it's shortish, but it meets all requirements. This article is as complete as could possibly be at this point; a biography of Neeles' life so far. Down the track, however, if the article doesn't keep up with her life it mightn't deserve featured status.--cj | talk 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. I'm just wondering whether it would be possible to support a "See also" section down the bottom - after reading an article, I think it's good to have some additional links to explore - any relevant "List of ..." or general topic articles? Also I'm not so sure about the "Main articles: Commonwealth Bank Trophy" link; this seems to suggest that the article Commonwealth Bank Trophy is an extension of the topic about Neele's debut, which it is not. enochlau (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit: Conditional] Object I just can't stand the fact it reads like a summary of one aspect of five years of one person's life, with very little else to the article. Sure, writing biography on an under 25 year old who's famous for a single thing isn't easy, but there's practiaclly no off-the-court stuff at all, the narrowness of the coverage demonstrated by the tiddly lead section. Can this problem be actionablisationed on? Dunno. How tall is she? Goal shooters are lanky, right? Does she do any non-netball related stuff, other interests? Newspapers love reporting that stuff, even if they've failed on the scandal front. Oh, and of course, a decent pic would help no end, which is surely possible for an alive-today-pulic-figure... could even, write to her and ask, or something. --zippedmartin 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything there is to know about things off the court, with the exception of the above caveats, is in this article. Thanks for the suggestion about height - I'll dig that up and find a place for it, but I'm afraid the rest is unactionable. I've seriously read just about everything ever written on the topic as part of the research for this article, and I can honestly say that if anything else has happened, it'd be original research. As for the picture, see above - this is quite honestly the best we can do without violating copyright law until June, and I don't think it's worth delaying this solely on those grounds. Ambi 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to conditional, at discretion of the closer. I'm happy to accept this is probably the best article wikipedia can write on an active (though on break) netball player, and not bad as an article on a young sports person, but it's just such a long way short of other featured biographies. Really what I want is someone better than me to neatly point out what to change and where, because I can't really think of direct suggestions for improvement at all. On the pic front, while a good one (or a few! in-action-pics!) would be great, it's not something that should prevent featured-ness alone. --zippedmartin 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: while it's an obvious question to raise, I think we can trust Ambi's assertion that there isn't any more notable non-netball stuff worth adding to the article. However, while I don't feel it's fair to object, I hesitate to support, because it seems extraordinary to me to feature an article on a sports player without including any photographs of the subject actually participating in her sport. Ambi has stated that it will take until June to acquire some. Part of me thinks that — perhaps — the article should not be featured until then, but I'm not going to assert an objection. — Matt Crypto 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is a well researched and written article. If i had to suggest a way to improve it i would say that maybe a statistics box could be added to show her current age,height, positions, acheivements and so on. This would make it easier for a person to gain important information quickly and they wouldn't have to look through the whole article. --Ali K 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cynna_Kydd&oldid=53804562"