Talk:Grand Slam (PBA)/GA2
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Alright, since this has been the longest in the queue and the previous review had issues up the wazoo, I will take a look at it. I hope not to be too long. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I will be brief, much like the article itself: While its prose has been cleaned up considerably since the first review, a review that should have been discarded for more than just the given reasons (the reviewer was blocked indefinitely the next day as a sockmaster, and more importantly he had worked on the article earlier to a level I would consider it necessary for him to disqualify himself from any GA review), to the point that very little additional copy editing was necessary, it still fails. It was correctly noted that there are quite a few PBA categories on Commons with free images that might serve to illustrate the article. None have been added.
I would also add that there are some places where the article could be more informative. I marked three terms—"twice-to-beat advantage", "resident import" and "rubber match"—as needing to be explained appositively since they are not universally familiar (I didn't understand them, for one). It might also be helpful to add an explanation as to why the PBA briefly went to a two-conference format, just for context's sake.
Lastly, the prose could be spiced up a bit by some sourced comments from sportswriters, players and coaches if they can be found. How did the former perceive the scale of the teams' accomplishing this? How did the latter feel about winning it? It would give a human dimension to the article.
Thank you for nominating and improving the article, and I wish you luck in improving it further. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)