This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Comment: Plenty of other pictures on Commons if anyone cares... also, the concept of a "sport fan" may have separate notability from "sport fandom" (they have different Wikidata). But for now, they are both discussed in this article (which I can't believe did not exist until now...).
Created by Piotrus (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 546 past nominations.
Overall: I am not a great reviewer (or I'm just rusty), so bear with me on this. Prose-wise, there is a good framework to this, but the article formatting is a little off-putting to me due to the presence of a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. I understand that not every paragraph can have multiple sentences, but the points are raised rather suddenly and then not bulked up by later points. It brings up some good concepts, however. The mention of class is always interesting in a general article like this, and that seems to be the aspect of this article that is built up the most. Concerns I have besides the paragraphs are that there are some duplications on points (Commodification is mentioned twice, for example), and some odd phrasing in places ("such as sports riot" sticks out, as does "tailgation," which I've never heard before, even as a sports fan myself). One thing I'd like to see, perhaps, is an image of an American sports fan...a lot of the writing I see has American viewpoints (though not so many as to cause a POV problem), but the pictures are both European. It's not a deal-breaker, but one would add some flair to the article, especially if it's a "superfan" of sorts. As far as sourcing is concerned, I can't access the dominant source (I probably could if I remembered where I can find access), but I'm AGF in you using it correctly. Like I said, I'm not good at QPQ reviews. I have to be subjective with them, and that's not how I write. If you need more (or better) information, let me know on my talk page. Basically, however, it needs some polish, and a little more depth, but it's a good start. BTW, I like the class hook best. JustJamie820 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustJamie820: Thank you for the review. I've added an image of the American sport supporters, there was room. I've also removed tailgation from the see also (it was recently deleted as not notable/very badly written). I think the two mentions of commodification are fine. However, I fear your other comments are too vague to be actionable and crucially, not related to WP:DYKCRIT (i.e. I think your standards are too high for a DYK review - of course, I am a bit defensive and subjective, but I've also written ~1,000 DYKs, so at least I am reasonably experienced with what generally can get DYKed). This is not a a WP:GA, just a start-to-C class level article, outlining the topic. Some one-sentence paragraphs need expanding; this entire article should be much longer. "some polish" and "a little more depth", which are both needed here (I concur) are not required for DYK (an article could be rejected if it had a glaring omission, like - per DYKCRIT example - an article about a book that's completely missing a plot summary). This article, however, has no glaring omissions (at least, none have been identified) - I've based it on two professional encyclopedias (their entries about the topic) and I believe I summarize all key points that are raised in those works. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: You're right. It's been a while (six years or so) since I did one of these reviews, and I did confuse the nature of reviewing something for DYK with all the reviews I've ever seen for FA's, FL's, FT's, and, even though I've never seen an actual review process in action for one of those, probably GA's. My apologies for getting those mixed up. You're also right that it covers what needs to be covered with an article like that. You did well to make it professionally cited and properly wikilinked. Maybe I didn't know what to expect out of an article like that and took on too large of a topic. Anyway, back to the review. As an overview, it covers everything it should, which I was impressed with even as I was making my initial review for things that aren't for DYK. I'm upgrading the "maybe" to "yes" as a result. Congrats on another DYK entry. Sorry if this wasn't the best review process. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a great reviewer (or I'm just rusty), so bear with me on this. Prose-wise, there is a good framework to this, but the article formatting is a little off-putting to me due to the presence of a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. I understand that not every paragraph can have multiple sentences, but the points are raised rather suddenly and then not bulked up by later points. It brings up some good concepts, however. The mention of class is always interesting in a general article like this, and that seems to be the aspect of this article that is built up the most. Concerns I have besides the paragraphs are that there are some duplications on points (Commodification is mentioned twice, for example), and some odd phrasing in places ("such as sports riot" sticks out, as does "tailgation," which I've never heard before, even as a sports fan myself). One thing I'd like to see, perhaps, is an image of an American sports fan...a lot of the writing I see has American viewpoints (though not so many as to cause a POV problem), but the pictures are both European. It's not a deal-breaker, but one would add some flair to the article, especially if it's a "superfan" of sorts. As far as sourcing is concerned, I can't access the dominant source (I probably could if I remembered where I can find access), but I'm AGF in you using it correctly. Like I said, I'm not good at QPQ reviews. I have to be subjective with them, and that's not how I write. If you need more (or better) information, let me know on my talk page. Basically, however, it needs some polish, and a little more depth, but it's a good start. BTW, I like the class hook best. JustJamie820 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)