Template:Did you know nominations/Steven Clarke (Canadian football)

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 03:22, 6 August 2015 by imported>Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (Reverted edits by BU Rob13 (talk) to last version by Bagumba)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Steven Clarke (Canadian football)

  • ... that gridiron football player Steven Clarke was a plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that college athletes are entitled to compensation for the use of their images?
  • Reviewed: Eadwine Psalter
  • Comment: The biggest concern with this hook is neutrality, which is why I've avoided any mention of the NCAA and noted that the lawsuit was unsuccessful. I do think this lawsuit should be the focus of the hook, as it's the most interesting thing about Clarke. I'm particularly interested in ensuring that this hook is as neutral as it can be before it is promoted, and any suggestions or specific comments addressing that would be appreciated.

Created by BU Rob13 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New article nominated on time that is long enough, neutral, cited, and without close paraphrasing concerns. I think the "unsuccessful" part can be omitted, as it can be viewed as negative, and anyways gives more reason to the reader to open up the article for details. Also, I'd move remove mention of the compensation, as it makes it come off as greedy (people might come to that conclusion on their own). Also the current article and sources don't make it clear that the lawsuit directly asked for compensation. I have no legal background, so I'm shying away any statement that seems to get into questionable legal interpretations—like medical news, a lot of law is misinterpreted by the general media. Perhaps just mention that they alleged that their image was used without their permission? Or I can add an ALT and have someone else review.—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Template:Replyto The interesting thing about the hook, for those knowledgeable about sports at least, is that the NCAA has strongly opposed providing any compensation whatsoever to college athletes despite the industry being worth billions. They've even made claims stating universities don't make money off of athletics, so can't afford to pay athletes, despite the huge amount of revenue coming in from televising games. I'm actually concerned about neutrality in the other direction (i.e. not giving the NCAA a fair shake), which is why I included "unsuccessful" in an attempt to swing things back in favor of the NCAA.
Public opinion on the payment of college athletes is generally very in favor of the athletes (see John Oliver's take, for instance). For this reason, I don't think the perception of greed is a serious concern. I've removed unsuccessful from the hook. Compensation is now included in the article, and it is sourced in ref 9, in the copy of the lawsuit at the bottom. See page 38, which reads "That a judgment be entered for Plaintiffs and Class Members against Defendants for the amount of all general damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class". I certainly don't want to dismiss your concerns, but I wanted to make sure you have all the context before I break out the less interesting alts. If you still feel the same way, let me know, and I'll start looking at an alternative fact. ~ RobTalk 00:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, at least the compensation part can be sourced. It would be good if a secondary source directly supported this, otherwise cite the primary source of the court case with the page number (direct quote in the citation itself wouldn't hurt either). The hook still needs some work, as alleged doesn't seem right as currently worded. Allege implies that something was done wrong, e.g. improper use of image; it's not correct to use allege with respect to the corrective action sought. Also, the lawsuit is not for all college athletes, but I believe only for football and men's basketball. Should also mention class-action in the hook.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)