Template:Did you know nominations/Game of Change
- 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 Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Game of Change
- ... that in 1963, a majority-black Loyola-Chicago team and an all-white Mississippi State team defied segregationists to play a historic college basketball game (pictured)? Source: "When Loyola-Chicago Broke a Racial Barrier 55 Years Ago", New York Times
- Comment: DYK suggested by User:Shirt58 on my talk page
Created by IagoQnsi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
- Comment: I've just added a photo to the nomination. –IagoQnsi (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Oh, just found out about QPQ – this is my first ever nomination so bear with me. I see that I get five free passes, but I went ahead and did one anyway: Template:Did you know nominations/Homo ergaster. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The article is new enough and long enough, with over 5,000 characters. The hook itself is quite timely in nature and meets the formatting requirements. No QPQ review was required in this case (although it's nice that you did one anyway), and the photo licensing looks okay. However, some additional work is needed with the referencing. The aftermath section is entirely unsourced, and the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Loyola-Chicago background section also doesn't have a cite. This information doesn't seem too hard to find references for, but DYK criteria call for information in articles to be reliably sourced, so that must be done before this gets approved. The various aspects of the hook fact are supported in the article, but DYK criteria call for inline citations in the sentence that the relevant fact(s) appear in the article. In this case, to be safe, I'd recommend adding additional cites in the background sentences where the articles mentions Loyola having four black starters and Mississippi State being all-white, each of which come a sentence before existing refs that support the items. I'll AGF on the content supported by ref 6, since I don't have a NYT subscription, but the other content I checked was adequately supported and free of close paraphrasing. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: Thanks for the review! I've added citations to the Aftermath section, the NIT sentence in the Loyola-Chicago background section, and to the statements in each background section about the racial makeup of each team. (I also ended up expanding the Mississippi State background and Aftermath sections in the process). Is there anything else you think needs adjusting? –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
No, the changes you made all look fine to me and address my concerns about the level of sourcing. As a bonus, the added newspapers.com links provide more verification for the parts of the blurb that had been backed by the old paywalled NYT article. The article looks good to go now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
