Talk:Basketball Association of America/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Scratch my earlier comment. The previous version listed for the fail is not correct. This article was failed on Nov 6 the first time, but the version linked in the template is Nov 9. As such I didn't think there was any change since the last nomination. This is on hold while I continue the review.

Reviewer: Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It failed last time partially due to an error. I checked the books. I get junk. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Really? One of the first links I looked at seems to have quite a bit on the formation. [1]. Dates, info about conflicts, etc. This has a nice bit on scheduling [2]. There is a nice discussion on African American players in the league in this book [3]. This one has a nice bit about the trouble the league had with the first seasons playoffs and arenas. [4]. Sorry, but I see plenty of useful information in these books. With quotes around the name, I'm pulling over 660 results on google books. It seems like the coverage of this article could be far broader.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This one has info on how the BAA used players from the NBL to help the league survive [5]. I'm seeing plenty of info and very little junk.--Crossmr (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)