Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2016 [1].
2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl edit
I am nominating this article for FA review because I have been working on making it as comprehensive and useful as possible to readers. I believe it can reach FA status because it is already well-sourced and easily passed the good article review a few months ago. The article is about a fairly controversial event at a sports event, so reviewers may want to see if there is any sort of bias existing. It may also need some expansion, but I am not sure where to start. Please leave your comments or post whether or not you feel like it qualifies as a featured article. TempleM (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mike Christie edit
Leaning oppose. Some notes below; generally I think the prose is a bit muddy, and in a couple of cases looking at the sources I think the article represents the source a little imprecisely -- two or three times I had to go to the source to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened.
"with the Windsor Express being named the champions in the prior season by topping the Island Storm in seven games": you can be named champions after winning, or become champions by winning, but it's not usually phrased as "named champions by winning". I think changing it from "by topping" to "after they defeated" is the simplest fix.- Fixed.
"In the 2015 NBL Canada Playoffs, the Rainmen were coming off wins": I think this is a little imprecise, because the Rainmen were coming off wins when they reached the final; they weren't coming off wins when they were in the playoffs. Also, I don't like "Windsor, on the other hand, had beaten the Mississauga Power 3–1 and the Brampton A's 4–3": it's not really "on the other hand". How about something like "The Rainmen reached the 2015 finals via wins over the Moncton Miracles and Island Storm, 3–1 and 4–1 respectively; Windsor's route was through victories over Mississauga Power, by 3–1, and the Brampton A's, by 4–3"?- Fixed.
- Why so much detail about the six prior games of the finals? There's a separate article about them; surely all we need is the fact that they were tied 3-3, and details of anything that led to bad feeling between the teams.
- I mainly just included the scores of the games, plus information about fouls and injuries. I went in-depth into the foul and injury information because it shows the physicality of the games. There were far more fouls than you would usually see in a basketball game. Poor officiating was also a big part of the six games in the series.
"But midway, they crossed paths with Vito Frijia, London Lightning owner and a member of the NBL Canada executive committee, who stopped the bus in the middle of the highway": I think "midway" is more than can really be gleaned from the source; just say "part way there" (and drop the "But"). I also think "stopped the bus in the middle of the highway" isn't right: Frijia persuaded Levingston to have the bus pulled over -- he couldn't "stop" it by himself; and it was the side of the highway.- Fixed.
"but the incident would be ignored by owner Andre Levingston": what's the source for this? The quote in the source given doesn't clearly say that, and it's a player's opinion in any case so should be cited if you keep it in.- I deleted those words.
- <The incident with Fisher's bags being packed doesn't make it clear that per the source Fisher claimed the team instigated this, not the landlord.
"the players had supposedly been "forced" by team owner Andre Levingston to partake in the game": you mean "participate", not "partake"; and this needs rephrasing, since you can't say they were forced to do something they didn't do.- I added information about how team management was held accountable for this incident.
"Vito Frijia would be named league spokesman during the investigation": I think "was" would be better than "would be", but why do we need this information in the article at all?
Frijia was a key figure and had a lot of authority during the investigation, so this would be worth mentioning. I made the fix you suggested.
"The coach had a salary of only about $1,500 per month during the eight months he spent with the Rainmen. Despite this, he was unable to contact team owner Andre Levingston..." -- "despite this" seems to be a non sequitur; why would having a low salary mean he would expect to be able to contact Levingston?- I removed the statement that was causing an issue.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: I have made changes where you suggested them, so hopefully you can take another look to see if this is ready for featured article consideration. To any FA coordinators, please don't close this thread yet. TempleM (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on some other reviews, and would like to see what other reviewers think, so I'm going to hold off on a re-read for a bit. If I get time this weekend I'll come back and strike the points you've addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Hello, just making sure that you haven't forgotten about this. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi -- thanks for the ping. I struck the points you've fixed; I am not sure about leaving in the details of the games, so I'll leave that unstruck for another reviewer to see. It takes several reviews to promote an article, so I'm going to hold off re-reading this until we get another review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: What specific things in the games section do you think is unnecessary? TempleM (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi -- thanks for the ping. I struck the points you've fixed; I am not sure about leaving in the details of the games, so I'll leave that unstruck for another reviewer to see. It takes several reviews to promote an article, so I'm going to hold off re-reading this until we get another review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Hello, just making sure that you haven't forgotten about this. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on some other reviews, and would like to see what other reviewers think, so I'm going to hold off on a re-read for a bit. If I get time this weekend I'll come back and strike the points you've addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: There is some good commentary here but unfortunately there is no support for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. You are welcome to try again after the customary two-week waiting period. —Laser brain (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.