Wikipedia

Talk:Anthony Davis/GA1

< Talk:Anthony Davis
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Acdixon in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago63 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

These were my initial impressions of the article. They are not grouped by the GA criteria they address. I'll take care of that later. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lede:

  • "He has completed his freshman season for the 2011–12 Kentucky Wildcats and declared for the 2012 NBA Draft." Suggest adding "making him ineligible for further competition in NCAA basketball" or something of that ilk. Folks not familiar with the NCAA's amateurism rules may not know this.
    • This seems an odd level of detail for the LEAD. I don't recall seeing this fact in any article of anyone else who declared early.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I'll take your word for it that no other early entrants have this fact in the lead. I was just thinking of our non-U.S. readers. I guess when he gets drafted in a couple of months, it will render the point moot anyway. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "He is a 2012 NCAA Consensus First team All-American (unanimous) and was the 2011–12 NCAA Division I men's basketball season blocks leader." Why the shift in tenses?
  • "He has established Southeastern Conference single-season blocked shots and NCAA Division I freshman blocked shots records." Another tense question: why "has established" and not just "established"?
  • "he was unknown nationally and locally after three seasons of play" I gather from the rest of the article that this was because his division is ignored by the Chicago media. Might be nice to mention that here, since the reader otherwise wonders why this guy with a litany of awards was under the radar.
    • I don't think we should state why. He was probably a far less skilled player prior to his senior season too. Saying it was because the media ignored his division might place too much emphasis on that fact. The fact is that he was unknown. Later we detail that he was a late blooming talent and that the division was ignored. Both probably contributed to his lack of attention. While you come to the conclusion that it was because of the lack of notice for the division others might draw the conclusion that he was too short to play the type of game at which he now excels.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • I mentioned the fact that the division is lightly regarded, but stated no direct causality for his lack of recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I suppose it is more neutral not to draw a direct connection, and it seems OK to me now. On first read-through, it just struck me as odd because I always hear about the legendary Chicago high school basketball scene and figured at least somebody noticed him. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

High school career:

  • "plays in a division of the Chicago Public High School League... that is ignored by the media." Why is this?
  • "Although he went unnoticed nationally and locally after three seasons of Chicago Public League play,he blossomed in April of his junior year for an AAU travelling club team." You can probably eliminate this sentence. It's out of order chronologically, and all the information is mentioned again later anyway.
  • "He was soon thereafter rated as the #1 player in the class of 2011 by Scout.com[6] and in the ESPNU 100. Rivals.com rated him the #2 player behind Austin Rivers." Again, I feel like this needs to be placed later, since it happened later chronologically.
  • "As an unheralded guard after his sophomore season, he worked out with his cousins on guard drills that their father had developed." Maybe add a parenthetical "(Davis' uncle)" after "their father" for clarity about who "their" refers to.
  • "He committed to Kentucky on August 13, 2010 amid a pay for play scandal" I really think the details of the Chicago Sun-Times controversy all need to go right here. Otherwise, mention of a pay-for-play scandal leaves a nefarious cloud over him and UK until much later in the article, where it is explained that nothing was ever proven, and no real evidence was ever offered. Also, you might want to specify that it was a verbal commitment in order to distinguish it from his NLOI signing later.
  • "As late as Spring 2010 he was still unknown, but began to be noticed in mid April. In late April, Syracuse made him an offer. That spring NBA Top 100 Camp Director Dave Telep, invited him to the camp based on his dominant first half performance of the first game of the Fort Wayne, Indiana Spiece Fieldhouse event." Again, these three sentences are out of order chronologically. They belong before his commitment to Kentucky.
  • "In fact, he was a pre-season first team"; "in fact" is unnecessary.
  • "Perspectives is a charter school that operates as a math and science academy with high academic pedigree, but minimal athletic success." This would fit much more nicely with the sentence about Perspectives not having a gym than it does here.
  • "he missed some games due to a sprained right thumb" We don't know how many?
  • "finished the season fourth behind Rivers, Mike Gilchrist" Is it more proper to refer to Gilchrist by his name then, or his more common name (Michael Kidd-Gilchrist) now?
  • "In the April 9 Nike Hoops Summit 92–80 victory over the world team" This is very difficult to parse as worded. Many readers may not even realize that the Nike Hoop Summit is a U.S.-vs.-the-world format. You may need two or more sentences here.

Chicago Sun-Times report:

  • "The University of Kentucky and the Davis family have both threatened to sue the Sun-Times over the article. However, no lawsuits have been filed by Kentucky or the Davis family." You can probably combine these sentences and convert to simple past tense.
  • "Illinois has a one-year statute of limitations on libel cases. Thus, no claim will ever be filed." Maybe more encyclopedic to say "Illinois' one-year statute of limitations on libel cases expired before any lawsuits were filed."

Kentucky Wildcats:

  • "Eric Gordon says Davis is exactly like Camby." Why is Eric Gordon qualified to make such a statement? Has he ever played with/against Davis?
    • I noted that he was a 2008 NBA Draft lottery pick.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, I was thinking more along the lines of what frame of reference Gordon was coming from when making the comparison. Did he watch tapes of Davis to conclude that he was like Camby? I'm sure he played against Camby in the NBA, but I don't know why he was familiar enough with Davis' game to make the comparison. Also, I think the MOS advises against beginning a sentence with a numeral (e.g. "2008 NBA Draft lottery pick Eric Gordon"). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • The source did not provide that information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • I think that makes it much less relevant, then. If Calipari says it, is has credibility, since he coached both of them. If a respected analyst says it, it has credibility, since the analyst is paid to draw relevant comparisons. If a player that played with or against both of them says it, it has credibility, because that player has an appropriate frame of reference. When Gordon says it, we really don't know what his frame of reference is, so we really don't have a context to evaluate the credibility of his statement. You already mention that Davis draws frequent comparisons to Camby; that is probably enough without being supplemented by the opinion of a player who may have only seen a passing highlight reel of Davis, for all we know. I'd recommend just dropping it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Removed 2008.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "As the season progressed, he continued to battle Robinson while developing a college level offensive game." You might mention that the two played head-to-head twice during the season.
  • "Davis has led the Wildcats to a SEC conference regular season championship and averages 14.8 points per game, 9.8 rebounds per game, 4.8 blocks per game and has a FG percentage of 65 at Kentucky." Why "has led" instead of "led", "averages" instead of "averaged", and "has" instead of "had"? Also, this sentence needs a cite.
  • I know you are saving his postseason performance for the Honors and awards section, but there ought to be some mention here of Kentucky's loss in the SEC Tournament Championship to Vanderbilt and that Davis led his team to the national championship, just for the sake of completeness. Maybe mention his averages for both tournaments.
    • Are there RS that break down the data like that? I just added the game results.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I couldn't find the averages for the SEC Tournament, although I'm sure they are somewhere. If I have time, I'll keep looking. I fleshed things out a little using information from The Gleaner, the paper of record for Henderson, Kentucky. Take a look and see what you think. I may have introduced some repetitive wiki-links or something by mistake. If you're OK with this, we're probably done here.
        • Everything looks good to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • P.S. note that I linked directly to the team season articles and have removed two redundant links in the awards section later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • I figured I'd do something like that. I basically just wanted to write something that would show you what I had in mind. Thanks for fixing. I think this is good now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Watchlists:

  • "along with Kidd-Gilchrist, and Teague" I know you've already mentioned Teague once, but it wasn't in the context of being Davis' Kentucky teammate. You might give his first name again here.
    • My thinking was that since he did not change his name, we should not mention his full name again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • It's more a service to the reader than anything. I know when I read articles like this, even as a sports fan, I sometimes get lost in the avalanche of names and have to go back to put a last name with a first name and a relationship to the subject. Since the first mention of Teague was just a passing reference to him being a fellow All-American, and since that mention was several paragraphs previous, I think it could be helpful to repeat the first name here. I won't hold up a GA promotion over it if you are adamantly against it, however. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • I am hoping that the current 22KB content merely depicts the prologue to a long and prosperous NBA career. I consider 60kb to be a full length WP article. That being said if this grows as I think it could, the two Teague references are too close together compared to the prospective content of the article to warrant a second full mention. If there is 25 or 30 KB of content between mentions then I might rename him fully. This article doesn't even total that much.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • I still disagree, but I won't quibble over it any more at the GA level. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

National:

  • "CBSSports.com used a modified selection process that resulted in Davis being their national player of the year." Not sure I follow this. What was modified about it? When was it modified? Would the likely result have been different had it not been modified?
  • "On March 31, he became the John R. Wooden Award winner." Why not just "won the John R. Wooden Award"?
  • "Davis was selected to the NCAA South Regional All-Tournament Team." This is sort of divorced from the previous scant mentions of the NCAA Tournament. You might preface it with "During the 2012 NCAA Tournament," or something of that ilk, just to keep the reader oriented.
  • "in a rematch against Louisville." The idea of a rematch doesn't mean much here since this article makes no mention of the first match (and probably shouldn't). Just say "against Louisville".

Conference:

  • I generally don't start a new section with a pronoun.
  • "He earned 4 SEC  Freshman of the Week (FOTW) honors ... and 2 SEC Player of the Week (POTW) honors" IIRC, these two are mutually exclusive (i.e. you can't win both in the same week). If so, might want to mention that. Otherwise, one wonders how he could be the best overall player that week, but not the best overall freshman.
    • I hope it is O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • It's better. If I can remember, I'll try to dig up something in the next day or two about the rules for being FOTW and POTW. I'm pretty sure the SEC won't let you be both in the same week. If I don't find anything, this will probably suffice. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Contacted the webmaster for the official SEC web site. Rules are not posted there, but he is looking for them for me. I encouraged him to post them when he finds them. Striking this for now; I may revisit it if the search proves fruitful. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Some have described his SEC title-clinching performance as the most complete performance of his career." Who said this?
  • "He was also selected as the SEC Player of the Year, the SEC Freshman of the Year, the SEC Defensive Player of the Year and a first team all SEC selection." Try to reword to avoid saying he was "selected" as an "all SEC selection".

Records:

  • "Davis blocks more shots per game than most Division I men's teams." Need past tense now. "In the 2011-12 season, Davis blocked more shots per game than most Division I men's teams."
  • "On March 25, Davis established the SEC single-season blocked shots record in the NCAA Tournament South Regional Championship game victory over Baylor." Who held it previously?
  • "He has also surpassed Cousins' Kentucky freshman rebounds record." Need past tense, and what was the old record?

Professional career:

  • "Davis and the entire starting five of the national championship team declared for the 2012 NBA Draft." It bears mention that they were all underclassmen who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

With most of the above issues addressed, the article is very close to becoming GA.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The prose is still choppy in some places, especially around the litany of awards that Davis has received. Fixing this could be difficult, since there isn't a lot that can be done to vary the sentence structure/length when narrating those. While this might need to be addressed before/during FAC, it's plenty good enough for GA.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    References are abundant and linked to reliable sources. No evidence of OR. I didn't do spot checks, but I'm very familiar with Davis' career and have heard many of these facts mentioned in reliable sources myself. Nothing jumped out at me as being "out there".
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    One of the issues that remains outstanding above is some narration of the Wildcats' postseason before the Watchlists section. A couple of sentences will suffice, lest we run afoul of 3b, but I feel like that section truncates abruptly, especially considering that Davis' team won the national championship.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    No POV that I can detect
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    This article has been on my watchlist for months; no edit wars that I have observed.
  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):  
    Images appear to be free use. The infobox image could have a caption if you wanted to be nitpicky, but I don't. If you wanted to augment the article with more images, there are free images available of Coach Calipari, Terrence Jones, Doron Lamb, Darius Miller, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Marcus Camby, and probably several other folks relevant to Davis' career thus far.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Once the broadness aspect is addressed, I think this will meet GA standards. Pass. Kudos on tackling a topic that probably required a great deal of paring down potential sources! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Davis/GA1&oldid=860583749"