Template:Did you know nominations/Max Greyserman

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 SL93 talk 23:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• ... that PGA Tour golfer Max Greyserman's mother competed in a golf tournament 13 years after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis?

or ALT1:

• ... that PGA Tour golfer Max Greyserman and his brother Reed are the first brothers to win the New Jersey Amateur Championship?

or ALT2:

• ... that a year before golfer Max Greyserman earned his first PGA Tour card, he considered a different career path?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A91E:FA5D:EAB2:D6B0 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Reviewed: Masada myth
  • Comment: Nominated on behalf of an IP editor who will, as usual, provide the QPQ.

Schwede66 08:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC).

Overall: 8 of the 16 citations were checked for verification and close paraphrasing; no issues arose. I prefer ALT2 because the focus is on the subject of the article. ALT1 may mention a record being set, but the PGA Tour is more prestigious than the New Jersey Amateur Championship, so I still prefer ALT2. Yue🌙 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Unpromoted per WP:ERRORS RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sigh, I forgot to add an icon. The WP:ERRORS discussion was essentially A huge portion of this article rests on sources connected to the subject, like his old university and the PGA and the U.S. Open – WP:RS requires that articles be based on independent sources. Also, a significant portion of the article is WP:PROSELINE statistics, which read really awkwardly and make the article feel half-finished. RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Please address the above.--Launchballer 15:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I will see if I can address Roy's concerns over the next few days. Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Roy. While I have some views as to the difference between league sources and team or self-published sources as to independence, I've made revisions to the article that I hope will address your concern sufficiently. If not let me know, and I will try to do more. And explain what I at least see as the difference mentioned, and why that difference is important to the goal of wp:errors. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:ECDF:78AA:BB1B:9EDE (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROSELINE to understand the problem with the Amateur career and Professional career sections. @Theleekycauldron: who raised the original issue at WP:ERRORS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

• Don't think I have much to add; some positive changes in the article, but i'd still like to see a reduction in the non-independent sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll seek to make some further positive changes to the article along the lines requested to reduce sourcing to league publication. Also, understanding that proseline is an essay, I'll see what more can be done there. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A13D:8F1E:26A2:8F66 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • theleekycauldron I've sought to make further positive changes to the article along the lines requested. Although I would be remiss if I did not point out that I still after consideration believe that there is a great difference between a source that is not independent because it is an autobiography, or even the site of a team, and on the other hand a site of the official WP-accepted source of statistics for a league. Treating them all the same does, I expect, lead us to stray somewhat from the goal of the rule in the first place - which is to avoid COI sourcing. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F485:C373:DBEC:EA24 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    • at this point, I think it's best for me to leave this to an independent reviewer. I will say briefly that I strongly disagree with your view of the independence of leagues from their players, especially as it concerns non-team sports. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
      • A new reviewer seems like an apt suggestion. Thanks. How do we request that?

As to your last point, there are of course very few PGA refs at this point. Notably few, as a percentage of refs in the article. And given that the PGA is the official source for bland golf information such as "He ranked fifth on the Tour in putting average," and "he came in 4th at competition x," which is how it's used as a ref here, I'm frankly still not seeing the purpose of the "independent source" rule in its application here - unless you think that the PGA stats are not to be relied upon, unless ESPN or some other RS reports them. Golf Magazine is obtaining that information from another source - it does not generate that information itself - the same as MLB.com and NFL.com in those sports. That strikes me as perhaps somewhat short of a COI concern; and COI is no doubt the basis for the rule in the first place. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4569:133E:18AA:23EF (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. Schwede66 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Reviewing... let's see what we can do, since this is now two months old. Flibirigit (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Overall: Article still meets newness requirements as per the original review. Length is adequate, and the article was expanded a lot since its original review. Sourcing has improved greatly since the original review. Citations are needed for the "Professional wins" and "Results in major championships" sections. I also note that a variety of independent reliable sources have been added to the article. PGA refs can be used to cite statistics without compromising the independent sources for the prose. The article appears neutral in tone. Earwig returns a 43.8% score for likely plagiarism violation, but I found many proper nouns highlighted which are not plagiarism. I have struck ALT0 since the hook is not about the subject of this article. I have struck ALT2 since it is boring, and many people "consider" changing careers but do not change. ALT1 is interesting, properly mentioned and cited in the article, and verified by the source. There are no images used in the article. The QPQ requirement is complete. Overall, the article is much improved and needs only minor work on sourcing. Flibirigit (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @Tewapack: for cleaning up the sourcing in this article. ALT1 is approved. Flibirigit (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)