Talk:Western Kentucky University swim team hazing scandal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 13:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and important topic. I look forward to reviewing! I love swimming myself, but have only dabbled slightly in its competitive world. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JJonahJackalope, I have started the review below. Before reviewing the prose, I would like to resolve my two points about scope. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

Background

Whistleblowing

Police investigation

Title IX investigation

Aftermath

Program suspension

Responses from coaches and swimmers

Transfers from Western Kentucky

Legal proceedings

Federal lawsuit against the university

Possible reinstatement

Hazing issues at other college swimming programs

Sources clock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

References are consistently well formatted, and have archive links. No issues here.

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

Almost all sources are news reports from what appear to be reliable publications. I see no issues here.

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

Will do spot check after the prose review.

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) clock

Earwig only flags direct quotes. Will check for any too close paraphrasing on the spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) clock

I don't think the "Hazing issues at other college swimming programs" belongs in this article at all. I think it should be moved to some page which discusses collegiate swimming in general. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the section merits inclusion because it gives readers a better understanding of how the WKU incident is part of a broader issue of hazing in collegiate swimming programs across the United States, which is discussed in the references used in that section. I did not intend for the section to simply be a catch-all list of scandals at other universities, and I feel that the writing shows how it is related and relevant to the incident at WKU. Also, with regards to your last point, I don't believe that there is another Wikipedia article currently where that information could be moved to. This is an issue I noticed while writing this article, but there is (at least to me) a surprising lack of coverage regarding the topic of collegiate swimming. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrongly assumed this was all WP:SYNTH or WP:OR drawing connections between the events, but since the sources mostly mention mention the specific incident that is wrong. I was initially going to agree that it should be kept, but now I think that there isn't enough connection between the events. The only connection mentioned in the sources is that they fit into the same category of collegiate swimming hazing scandals. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, what would your recommendation be for editing? I still think that some mention of the broader issue would be beneficial to readers, especially when a publication like SwimSwam (from what I understand, a reputable source in the field of aquatics) mentions that hazing has reached "epidemic levels" in the sport. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is relevant, SwimSwam is definitely reputable, and I agree a short discussion on hazing issues in general would be appropriate, especially if the source discusses how this incident fits in the the broader issue. I think mentioning other scandals which are not connected by anything other than being in the same category belongs in an article which discusses the broader issue specifically though, e.g. something like Swimming (sport)#Hazing scandals.

So for example you could create a section like that (mostly comprised of cut and pasting the material), then significantly prune the section in this article, and then link to the main one with a "Further information: [article]" template. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Background" section is much too detailed, because most of the information does not help understand the scandal. I think most should be moved to Western Kentucky Hilltoppers and Lady Toppers. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I spent a good bit of time trying to determine how much or how little information to include in this section. (In all honesty, I tend to have an issue with striking a good balance in things such as lead sections of articles). I could trim some of this section, maybe try to consolidate it into a single paragraph, but I feel like it is important to give the readers a brief overview of the program and its history. This scandal led to the closure of what was at the time a very successful swimming program, and I think that discussing the program's premier status informs readers as to the magnitude of the scandal here (simply put, this was less of a scandal involving a random youth team or YMCA team and one involving Olympians and All-Americans, which I think is important to know). -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but all that information can be condensed into a single sentence. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, would you advise either relocating the information present in this section to other parts of the article, or a reduction in the size of the section, as mentioned previously, while maintaining the "Background" section as a standalone section? I would argue that the latter is preferrable, since I believe some level of background information would be beneficial to any readers. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most should be relocated to Western Kentucky Hilltoppers and Lady Toppers#Swimming, where is is more relevant, and then it can be summarized in a short paragraph, maintaining the "Background" section. I am only really in favour of maintaining the Background section because I don't really see where else the information would fit.

To be clear, there is a lot about this solution that could be changed. I am not coming from a rigid PoV here, I would rather find a solution we both agree with. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media clock

The image of Zach Apple is almost certainly copyvio in my opinion, see my reasoning here (I nominated it for deletion on commons). It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the potential copyvio here, but hopefully the issue is resolved on Wikimedia Commons and I will make any appropriate edits (including possibly finding a suitable replacement image) if it is removed. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

The university image is tagged appropriately.

Captions (Criterion 6b) Y

I don't think the Zach Apple image should have a full stop at the end of its caption. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the "Formatting and punctuation" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and it states that full stops should be used in captions whenever a complete sentence is used. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, for some reason I didn't think the Zach Apple caption was a full sentence but on re-reading it appears to be so. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

@It is a wonderful world:, I just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have responded to some of the points you raised in your review here. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding the article and I will try to respond promptly. Thank you for initiating this review! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I replied above. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world:, I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your responses here and look forward to further discussing positive edits that can be made to improve this article. Thanks again for initiating this review, and please feel free to reach out about anything regarding the page. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JJonahJackalope, I have responded above. To be clear, I am in favour of discussing these bigger issues first before going into finer detail on the article so they don't come back to bite later. I am open to changing my mind and would rather reach mutual agreement than a compromise, if that is at all possible. It is a wonderful world (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world:, I'm also definitely in favor of a mutual agreement, and I think some larger edits to other articles that we've brought up, such as adding a section discussing hazing in the Swimming (sport) article and adding more information to Western Kentucky Hilltoppers and Lady Toppers#Swimming, would resolve the points we've been discussing so far. If it works for you, I'll go ahead and start working on that and will let you know as soon as edits to those pages are made, after which I'll make some changes to this article we can pick back up with the rest of this review. Thanks for the constructive feedback here, and as always, feel free to reach out regarding any questions, comments, or concerns. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]