Talk:Australian Paralympians cycling around Fiji for people with disabilities

Journalist notes from Sydney, 31 May - 2 June 2013

Sydney University Sports and Aquatic Centre (First team is light, second team is dark)

Friday 31 May

Game 1 - Comets v Bears Final score: 36-71

Bears players include Louise Sauvage and Liesl Tesch

Liesl Tesch: We have history right here - still living. Two players who were at the first Gliders game in 1998 in Kobe, Japan. Q: When did you join? A: I joined in 1990 Q: Still playing wheelchair basketball? A: You can't keep fit sailing.

Kylie Gauci's parents: Louise Sauvage has been playing for at least three years

Game 2 - Flames v. Stars Final score: 35-57

Saturday 1 June

Game 3 - Victoria v. Bears Final score: 52-45 Observation: Cole mimicking Crispin Calculation: Chaplin (3.5) + Crispin (4.0) + Doma (1.0) + Del Toso (3.5) = 12.0 => Cole is 3.0 + 1.0 for being a rookie = 4.0 - the same as Crispin

Louise Sauvage: Q: Would you like to put on a Glider's guernsey? A: I'm good. I don't need to train that hard again.

Kathleen O'Kelly-Kennedy Q: Why weren't you with the team in London? A: I wasn't chosen

Ellie Cole: Q: How long have you been playing wheelchair basketball? A: About five months Q: Like it? A: I love it!

Shelley Chaplin:
       Q: You are going to be riding around Fiji. How did the fundraising go?
       A: We set a target of $13,000, and we raised $10,500, which is still fantastic

Leanne del Toso: We have a great team

Game 4 - Flames v. Comets Final score" 51-45

John Triscari: Q: You're the coach of the Gliders A: No. No longer, as of two days ago. Tom Kyle is now coach. He's around here somewhere.

Game 5 - Stars v. Bears Final score: 73-56

Deanna Smith: Q: How long have you been playing wheelchair basketball A: Three weeks Q: Wanted to start playing socially, but they were out of season A: How does it compare to the other kind of basketball Q: It's a harder technique

Game 6 - Flames v. Victoria Final score: 43-65

Game 7 - Stars v. Comets Final score: 66-41 Observation: Amber brilliant but ditzy Stars have pink jackets that read "Train insane or stay the same"

Sunday 2 June

Game 8 - Victoria v. Comets Final score: 69-32 Observation: Vic defence double tags Kean, shuts her down Observation: Del Toso 19, Chaplin 18

Game 9 - Stars v. Victoria Final score: 49-60 Observation: Victoria now dark, so switches guerneys

Game 10 - Flames v. Bears Final score: 40-57 Observation: Gauci on fire

From program

Rules: Maximum points on court is 15.0, but only two 4.5 players. Able bodied women are 4.5*. Juniors (under 20s) and rookies (first year players) get 1.0 point reduction, but not able bodied players.

Team lists:

Stacks Goodkamp Bears Georgia Munro Cook 4 4.5 (3.5R) Kathleen O'Kelly Kennedy 6 4.0 Liesl Tesch 7 4.0 Louise Sauvage 8 2.0 Melissa Collins 10 1.0 Kylie Gauci 11 2.0 Lisa Edmonds 13 3.0 Anthea Castelli 14 1.0 Bianca Morris 15 TBCR Comment: Kylie Gauci was last year's MVP. She also plays with the boys.

Sydney Uni Flames Kristy Finlayson 4 4.5* Katie Hill 5 3.0 Caitlin De Wit 6 3.0 Jessica Cronje 9 TBC(RJ) Hannah Dodd 10 TBC(R) Jessica Pellow 11 1.5 (0.5J) Fiona Johnstone 12 2.5 Sarah Stewart 13 3.0 Rachel Coady 14 1.0 Stephanie van Leeuman 15 2.5 Catherine Nelson 21 4.0(3.0J) Rachel McMaster 22 TBC(R) Kim Hughes 23 4.0 Comment: Caitlin in fourth yet of VetSci at Sydney Uni, on Sports Scholarship from Sydney University Sports and Fitness

Western Stars Sarah Vinci 6 1.0 Mandy Bonavita 7 2.0 Clare Nott 10 1.0 Deanna Smith 11 4.5* Georgia Inglis 12 2.5 Amanda Nott 13 4.5* Amber Merrit 14 4.5 Natalie Alexander 15 3.0

Minecraft Comets Bridie Kean 4 4.0 Sara Tait 6 2.5 (1.5J) Kristy Bugeja 7 2.5 Shelley Cronau 8 3.0 Alison Herring 9 4.5* Ella Sabljak 10 1.0 Belinda Dinga 12 4.5* Jasmine Clarke 15 3.0

Victoria Melanie Domaschenz 4 1.0 Cobi Crispin 5 4.0 Leanne Del Toso 9 3.5 Alice Hammond 10 TBC Shelley Chaplin 12 3.5 Ellie Cole 13 TBC Lynne panayiotis 14 TBC Jemima Moore 15 TBC

Upcoming games: Round Two 21-23 June Herb Graham Recreation Centre Mirrabrook, WA

Round Three 12-14 July North Sydney Indoor Sports Centre Crows Nest, NSW

Round Four 9-11 August Beenleigh Arena Beenleigh, QLD

Finals 6-8 September Sydney Sport and Aquatic Centre Darlington, NSW

Review of revision 1921533 [Not ready]

Revision 1921533 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The overall sourcing situation is... adequate, I guess; I'm wary of this feeling a bit like fundraising — a form of advertising; whether we approve of a cause doesn't impinge on our no-advertising policy. Is there any meaningful OR here? I haven't done a complete source-check, but looking at the OR notes it looks like the only relevant bit is likely to be the bit that says 13,000 dollars target of which over 10,000 have been raised, and I have to say, all of that information is available on two different synthesis sources here, and in fact is somewhat out of date based on the fundraiser-website source. Unless there's something else I haven't noticed here, the {{original}} tag isn't justified. This is probably not in danger of going stale in the next day or two, at least not if one keeps the amount-raised figure up to date, since new information come to light is fair game and the focal event can be reasonably construed as the start of the cycling. I'm having a hard time understanding the figures. They're billing this as a cycle of 550km in 10 days, but the schedule they also provide on their fundraising page indicates actual cycling of 487km in 8 days — their schedule has 10 days listed, of which neither day 1 nor day 10 has any cycling indicated (neither does day 5, but that's in the middle so it doesn't reduce elapsed time), and the listed day-by-day distances for the seven active days of cycling add up to 487km. Given that we do need to be reporting this as news rather than promoting a fundraiser, we should handle that in some way. The means of addressing it needn't be onerous, but we can't simply report as fact that it's 550 in 10. Attribution should likely come into play, and perhaps other adjustments. OR to determine what's behind the discrepancy is, of course, theoretically possible. A statement that immediately leapt to my eye, on first reading, was They believe they are the first athletes to use crowdfunding for a sporting achievement. Say what? Walks and runs for this or that charity seem like a fairly commonplace phenomenon to me. If this means what it says, it needs to be better explained so it doesn't give readers the sort of WTF moment it gave me. I wondered if it could be an inadvertently garbled version of some other related statement in a source, but I've been unable to find something in a source that would correspond to it, which makes it a verification problem as well as (if verified) a style problem. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1921533 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The overall sourcing situation is... adequate, I guess; I'm wary of this feeling a bit like fundraising — a form of advertising; whether we approve of a cause doesn't impinge on our no-advertising policy. Is there any meaningful OR here? I haven't done a complete source-check, but looking at the OR notes it looks like the only relevant bit is likely to be the bit that says 13,000 dollars target of which over 10,000 have been raised, and I have to say, all of that information is available on two different synthesis sources here, and in fact is somewhat out of date based on the fundraiser-website source. Unless there's something else I haven't noticed here, the {{original}} tag isn't justified. This is probably not in danger of going stale in the next day or two, at least not if one keeps the amount-raised figure up to date, since new information come to light is fair game and the focal event can be reasonably construed as the start of the cycling. I'm having a hard time understanding the figures. They're billing this as a cycle of 550km in 10 days, but the schedule they also provide on their fundraising page indicates actual cycling of 487km in 8 days — their schedule has 10 days listed, of which neither day 1 nor day 10 has any cycling indicated (neither does day 5, but that's in the middle so it doesn't reduce elapsed time), and the listed day-by-day distances for the seven active days of cycling add up to 487km. Given that we do need to be reporting this as news rather than promoting a fundraiser, we should handle that in some way. The means of addressing it needn't be onerous, but we can't simply report as fact that it's 550 in 10. Attribution should likely come into play, and perhaps other adjustments. OR to determine what's behind the discrepancy is, of course, theoretically possible. A statement that immediately leapt to my eye, on first reading, was They believe they are the first athletes to use crowdfunding for a sporting achievement. Say what? Walks and runs for this or that charity seem like a fairly commonplace phenomenon to me. If this means what it says, it needs to be better explained so it doesn't give readers the sort of WTF moment it gave me. I wondered if it could be an inadvertently garbled version of some other related statement in a source, but I've been unable to find something in a source that would correspond to it, which makes it a verification problem as well as (if verified) a style problem. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

1. I just noticed that the funding was on the Teambus site. (I think my browser at home suppressed it.) The point is the bit about "told Wikinews", which is true. Removed the OR tag. (I'll try to interview them when they get back.)
2. I keep receiving updates on their progress, assuming that Twitter counts as a source.
3. They say the distance is 550 km, including on the itinerary page. (The Twitter reports seem to indicate that it is closer to the mark than the schedule.) I sent a tweet asking for clarification, but in the meantime I changed it to "roughly 500 km", a figure they also use which puts both figures within ±10%. I tried looking it up, but there seems to be a lot of discrepancies in the maps about the distances. I realise that they don't ride every day, but most people would be knackered after a day or two.
4. Source 3 says They aim to be the first athletes to crowdfund a sporting achievement. Which I understood to mean fundraising over the internet. Changed to simply read that they are crowdfunding.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If the owner if a Twitter account is known, one can use it to establish that that person said some particular thing; the significance of the fact that they said it depends on context. --Pi zero (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1923483 [Passed]

Revision 1923483 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See history of edits during review. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1923483 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See history of edits during review. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.