Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Ramberg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Harry Ramberg
... that despite being two times singles and multiple times doubles Swedish champion Harry Ramberg only reached the first round once both in the 1929 Wimbledon Championships singles and doubles contest?
- Reviewed: Tristan Clemons
Created by Lajbi (talk). Self nom at 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
What makes this hook interesting? Anyone successfully entering Wimbledon will make the first round of that year's championship exactly once. If the idea was that he only qualified for/entered Wimbledon once in both categories, and that time was in 1929, the hook doesn't say that. If the idea further is that he made it once, but lost in the first round in both singles and doubles, that isn't clear either. A new or rewritten hook is needed, and if it can also be shorter and snappier, so much the better. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was tend to say the latter but since my first language isn't English I think it would be wise if you (or somebody else) suggest a hook that properly describes that. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now that I look at it, the article is not clear what happened at Wimbledon. "Early exit" under the singles isn't clear how early: was it the first round? Second round? For the doubles, the article just says who Ramberg and his party lost to: again, no indication of in which round the loss occurred. Further, the article doesn't say, nor is there a citation for it, that this was his only Wimbledon. That fact would have to be stated and cited in the article to be included in the hook. It isn't enough that Wimbledon is not mentioned again in the section on this career. Each relevant fact must be mentioned in the article and be cited. As it is, I can't suggest a hook that properly describes what happened because the article doesn't give enough details for me to do so accurately.
- I did wonder at the fact that there is no indication that Ramberg had died, which would put him at 103 years old if he is still alive. Is there any way to find out whether he is still alive, and add that information to the article? If he is a centenarian, that's definitely worth highlighting. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- As for Wimbledon, it could happen that the text doesn't get into details with that but the infobox has everything included as well as refs for it (I'm not sure DYK requires every info to be put in text; e.g. football teams don't have every matches of theirs explained in prose but does that exclude an infobox matchfact to get DYK-ed?). As for his death, I couldn't find any record about it (nor English nor Swedish), which could mean he's till alive but very unlikely. As for the "only Wimbledon" fact, if it has to be written in one sentence like this word-by-word within a ref, than I guess this nomination has to be rejected by default. But let me return to the infobox again and compare this case to it. An infobox contains the best result of a player in every article and I'm quite sure other (sports-) infoboxes works the same. Although there aren't articles about the best results of players for each Grand Slam (it could happen at some times - mostly modern-era and special occasions -, but it'd cover like 5% of the players at most). So if 1R (first round) is his best result and there's only one date after it it means it is his only one. The yearly Swedish Sports Almanachs released by Svenska Dagbladet I used as sources embeds a 11-year span (and I also checked the later editions, but his name didn't come up anymore), but I'm aware that Wikipedia is not always flexible. The only alternate hooks that come to my mind unfortunately would include player names that are red-linked currently...If rules allow me some days I could create an other article for his DC partner and make this a double article DYK nomination. Sorry for the long answer. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The infobox shouldn't have any information that is not also in the body of the article. In this case, if the first source lists Ramberg as having lost in the first round of the 1929 Wimbledon Men's Singles and in Men's Doubles, that should be plainly stated and sourced in the article proper. Hooks should not be based on infobox data but on article text, but that's easily fixed. As for how to approach the "only Wimbledon", perhaps you could base it on the Svenska Dagbladets Årsbok source, if it gives complete listings of Swedish tennis results in the given time period. I'm not sure what kind of publication this is: is it a yearbook of some kind? Looking through 1924 through 1935, it appears that 1929 is the only year in that period that any Swedes went to Wimbledon, and both singles entrants (and the two as doubles) lost in the first round. The problem is if it is not fully comprehensive, then it can't be used to show that this was the only Wimbledon entry, and you don't want to stray into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory.
- As for Wimbledon, it could happen that the text doesn't get into details with that but the infobox has everything included as well as refs for it (I'm not sure DYK requires every info to be put in text; e.g. football teams don't have every matches of theirs explained in prose but does that exclude an infobox matchfact to get DYK-ed?). As for his death, I couldn't find any record about it (nor English nor Swedish), which could mean he's till alive but very unlikely. As for the "only Wimbledon" fact, if it has to be written in one sentence like this word-by-word within a ref, than I guess this nomination has to be rejected by default. But let me return to the infobox again and compare this case to it. An infobox contains the best result of a player in every article and I'm quite sure other (sports-) infoboxes works the same. Although there aren't articles about the best results of players for each Grand Slam (it could happen at some times - mostly modern-era and special occasions -, but it'd cover like 5% of the players at most). So if 1R (first round) is his best result and there's only one date after it it means it is his only one. The yearly Swedish Sports Almanachs released by Svenska Dagbladet I used as sources embeds a 11-year span (and I also checked the later editions, but his name didn't come up anymore), but I'm aware that Wikipedia is not always flexible. The only alternate hooks that come to my mind unfortunately would include player names that are red-linked currently...If rules allow me some days I could create an other article for his DC partner and make this a double article DYK nomination. Sorry for the long answer. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did wonder at the fact that there is no indication that Ramberg had died, which would put him at 103 years old if he is still alive. Is there any way to find out whether he is still alive, and add that information to the article? If he is a centenarian, that's definitely worth highlighting. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- As for alternate hooks, there's no requirement that the other players involved be linked or even have articles: just as long as Ramberg is in it, the rest of the details can be entirely unlinked. What did you have in mind? The doubles defeat of Tilden looks possible (another approach at Wimbledon, perhaps?); I can't help but notice the the sets were won by two games: both Tilden's two against Ramberg, and all three in the doubles match. Or something else entirely? Why not try a couple? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Årsbok means yearbook in Swedish and it covers all-Swedish related results of all kind. But I guess I'm gonna go with the alternate hook now, I don't want to run into a WP:OR and risk the DYK. I checked the death date issue and daviscup.com has him as "deceased" though no year is given. So the long and the short of it is, I really liked your idea about Tilden and co. so I try to use that as the new hook, so here it goes:
- As for alternate hooks, there's no requirement that the other players involved be linked or even have articles: just as long as Ramberg is in it, the rest of the details can be entirely unlinked. What did you have in mind? The doubles defeat of Tilden looks possible (another approach at Wimbledon, perhaps?); I can't help but notice the the sets were won by two games: both Tilden's two against Ramberg, and all three in the doubles match. Or something else entirely? Why not try a couple? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that in a professionals against amateurs tennis match in 1932 multiple times doubles amateur Swedish champion Harry Ramberg and Curt Östberg defeated the pro duos of Tilden-Barnes and Nüsslein-Najuch?
Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- The hook seems to me to get bogged down a bit in "multiple times" and "professional versus amateurs". Here are a couple of variants of the above, that I hope are a bit snappier, one with the Swedes first (185 characters) and one with Tilden first (198 characters):
- ALT2: ... that Swedish doubles amateur champions Harry Ramberg and Curt Östberg defeated two professional tennis duos in a 1932 match, including the American team of Bill Tilden and Bruce Barnes?
- ALT3: ... that the American pro tennis doubles team of Bill Tilden and Bruce Barnes was defeated in 1932 by Swedish doubles amateur champions Harry Ramberg and Curt Östberg, who also beat Nüsslein and Najuch?
- Let me know what you think. I apologize for taking so long to respond and come up with these. If you want a flavor of "multiple times", you could probably add "repeat" before "Swedish" in the first hook; the second hook would have to sacrifice the "also beat" clause to similarly add the "repeat". BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I like both of them, although maybe ALT2 draws bigger attention to the original article by starting with Ramberg. But since I'm the creator I'd wait for a third editor to decide, which one is preferred. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
