Talk:SEABL Canberra Capitals win over Bendingo Braves in a thriller

Journalist Notes

The player roster was e-mailed to the scoop list as this contained potential copyvios. --LauraHale (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My handwriting is practically unreadable in parts. :( some transcribing... --LauraHale (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Laura Journalist notes

(page 1) Canberra Basketball Centre 17/July

Caps SEABL vs Bendigo Braces 5:47 national anthem played & we all stand 5:53 game starts first shot was made by opposition but missed

---

Caps 41 to line for 1 on first possession 1-2 for 1 point lead

21 for Caps scored first 2 for Caps 2-0

7 Scored for Braves converted for 3 point player on shooting foul

(page 2) Raining outside could hear inside

Caps went ahead 10-8 Then 11-8 after free throw

54 for Braves brought 11-10 after lat up

at 3:58 left in first 10 came on for caps #7

At 3:08 in first #10 shot 3 pointer that a total airball

at 2:30 two caps fought for the same rebound (offensive) only to tip it to Bendigo

(page 3)

at 1:32 score caps 15-14 Caps

1. 7 for Bendigo made 3 to tie it up with 30 seconds left in the quarter

First quarter ended on tie 17-17

Caps had 4 fouls to 3 for Bendigo

7:11 left in second 20-23 to Bendigo

1. 9 scored easy 2 point jump shot to put the caps at 6:20 to bring to 22-23 10 for Caps subbed in for 14 at 6:00

5:11 24-26 1 personal foul for each team

(page 4)

1. 41 Dombkins kept taking 3 point shots and missing

21 missed 3-point but 7 rebounded to make 2 points at 3:22 score 26-26 timeout taken at 3:22 left in the second

STILL RAINING OUTSIDE

at 1:50 #15 for Bendigo drove to the hole to tie it 3-31. Canberra scored again and then bendigo back to tied at 33-33 with 1:07 in 2nd.

1. 20 scored at 0:45 to give Bendigo 33-35 lead

(page 5)

1. 9 scored 3 with 29 left to bring score to 36-35

1. 30 for Bendigo traveled with 0:03 left to turn ball over to Canberra

End of second half score 36-35 Caps

6:37 second half started and caps scored 2 quick ly to go more ahead 38-35

1. 15 for Bendigo on shot for 3 and missed

1. 14 went 2-2 at line line for score 4-30-35 with 8:45 left in third

(page 6)

1. 14 scored for caps 42-35 with 7:53 ledt in third. Each team had 1 personal. 7 unaswered points. jump ball 7:13 after turn over. Rebound on conseld.

1. 7 turned over for bendigo that turnover then Caps moved than Bengio Caps bele #7 for Bendigo scores & Caps drive 42-37 with 6:15 left in the third.

1. 14 caps line for shooting foul. Made both 44-37.

(page 7)

Bendigo kept train to drain shot clock in third while caps went down to quickly score.

5:50 left in third. timeout. score 44-37 caps.

Bendigo turnover followed by caps turnover around 4:45 left.

Hawkeye7 Journalist notes

International??

From an intern'l perspective, the article could stand to be wikified in a few places. What the heck is SEABL to a regular American-type guy such as m'self? Bddpaux (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Headline

The current headline lacks specificity. It should tell the most important and unique thing. Beyond style, from a practical perspective each Wikinews headline must be unique for all time (because once an article is published, there can never be another with the same headline). --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1557113 [Passed]

Revision 1557113 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I based verification on Laura's notes (and the email to scoop), simply because Laura's were listed first. They covered all the blow-by-blow details, and having verified everything I didn't look as closely at the second set of notes (though I did look them over and they seemed to cover most of the points and agree with the first set). 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 1557113 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I based verification on Laura's notes (and the email to scoop), simply because Laura's were listed first. They covered all the blow-by-blow details, and having verified everything I didn't look as closely at the second set of notes (though I did look them over and they seemed to cover most of the points and agree with the first set). 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.