Talk:Bill Bradley/GA1

GA Review

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

Initial Review

(Reviewed revision)

Hello. This is a very nice article, but still needs a bit of improvement to become a good article. Below is a list of what I feel is missing based on the criteria.

• The lead of the article is very short given the length of the subject. You should expand it to be at least three paragraphs and better summarize his entire life. See WP:Lead for pointers.

 Done

*The Image File:McPheeBradley.JPG does not have a fair use rationale for using it on this article. I am not sure that one exists either. I beleive the use of this image would only be acceptable on an article about the book itself. See WP:F for more details.

 Done

*File:Billbradleytimemagazine.jpg has the same issue as above. The image likely is only acceptable on an article about the magazine itself. In any case, there is no fair use rationale for its use on this article.

 Done

• Overall the article is well written, but there are a few places the prose is a little winding and could be tightened up. For example:

**Bradley chose Princeton University—even though, as an Ivy League school, it could not offer an athletic scholarship—after backing out of a commitment to Duke University. Could be: After backing out of a commitment to Duke University, Bradley chose to attend Princeton University—even though, as an Ivy League school, it could not offer an athletic scholarship.

 Done

**During his high school years, Bradley maintained a maniacal practice schedule. Maniacle sounds a bit odd here unless you are quoting someone. How about "rigorous" instead?

 Done

**Bradley is an Eagle Scout and recipient of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award from the Boy Scouts of America. One sentance paragraps should be merged in somewhere else or expanded. See WP:Paragraph

 Done

**More than four decades after completing his college career, Bradley holds a number of Ivy League career records, including total and average points (1,253/29.83, respectively), and free throws made and attempted (409/468, 87.4%). This is not going to age very well. Keep in mind that in another twenty years this article will still be here. Maybe say something like, "As of 2009, Bradley still holds a number of Ivy League career records..."

 Done (I had previously thought the "more than four decades" wording was sufficiently broad that it wouldn't be stale every week or every year; then I just removed any ref to time. People can figure out how long ago 1965 was.)

**Harry S Truman should be Harry S. Truman

 Done

• • On the court, Bradley struggled in his rookie year before coming into his own in his second season, when he was moved from the guard position to his more natural forward slot. "Coming into his own" is slang and also vague. You should be more precise here in explaining exactly what happened, did he become more proficient in a certain area? Did he start getting along better at playing with his teammates? Etc. See WP:Slang

 Done

• • While he was a senator, Bradley walked the beaches from Cape May to Sandy Hook, a four-day, 127-mile trip each Labor Day weekend, to assess beach and ocean conditions and talk with constituents.[27][28] this seems out of place, should probably be moved back a pragraph or two and integrated with another paragraph.

**Although Gore was considered the party favorite,[29] Bradley did receive several high-profile endorsements. He was supported by senators Paul Wellstone,[34] Bob Kerrey, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan;[35] former senators John A. Durkin and Adlai Stevenson III; Governor John Kitzhaber; former governors Lowell Weicker (a former Republican),[36] Tony Earl, Ray Mabus, Brendan Byrne, Robert W. Scott, Neil Goldschmidt, Philip W. Noel, Kenneth M. Curtis, and Patrick Lucey; Representatives George Miller, Bill Lipinski, Pete Stark, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutiérrez, Anna Eshoo, Jim McDermott, and Diana DeGette; former Representatives Jim McNulty, Mary Rose Oakar, Michael J. Harrington, Andy Jacobs, and David Skaggs; former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich; former New York City mayor Ed Koch; former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker; filmmaker Spike Lee; San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano; Seattle Mayor Paul Schell; Harvard Professor Cornel West; feminist icon Betty Friedan; former Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox; and basketball stars Michael Jordan and Bradley's former Knicks teammate and close friend Phil Jackson.[37][38][39] This list is really execsive. Cut it down to five of the most important and either footnote the rest, or remove them.

 Done

• The "Personal" section seems to be out of place also. I would weave it into the rest of the article.

• Referncing is good overall, but there are a few places that need inline citations. See WP:FOOTNOTES for more info.
  • During his sophomore season, Bradley averaged 27.3 points and 12.2 rebounds a game while sinking 89.3 percent of his free throws. Among his greatest games was a 41-point effort in an 80-78 loss to heavily favored Michigan in the 1964 Holiday Festival (Bradley fouled out with his team leading 75-63), and a 58-point outburst against Wichita State in the 1965 NCAA tournament, which was a single-game tournament record. In total, Bradley scored 2,503 points at Princeton, averaging 30.2 points per game. A citation needs to placed at the end of each sentance that cite a statistic.

 Done - removed the paragraph (might be appropriate to add back later).

• • On the court, Bradley struggled in his rookie year before coming into his own in his second season, when he was moved from the guard position to his more natural forward slot. In 1969–70, he helped the Knicks win their first NBA championship, followed by a second in 1972–73. The second championship season was Bradley's best as a pro, and he made his only All-Star Game appearance that year. His first NBA title also made him the first player ever to win an Olympic gold medal, a European Champions Cup, and an NBA championship ring. This feat has only been matched by Manu Ginóbili. This needs a citation

 Done (reworded some; removed the uncited claim)

• • In the NBA, Bradley was not the major scoring threat he had been in college. Over ten years at small forward for the Knicks, "Dollar Bill", as he was nicknamed, scored a total of 9,217 points for an average of 12.4 points per game, with his best season being 16.1 points per game. this needs a citation

 Done

• • In 1976, he also became an author, with Life on the Run, which chronicled his experiences in the NBA and the people he met along the way. This needs a citation

 Done

• • He felt his time had been well-spent in "paying his dues". Needs a citation

**The article relies heavily on newspaper sources, which is ok, but you would get a much better picture and more details if you could find a book with a more comprehnsive look at his life. This is not such a problem, as I feel the sourcing meets the GA requirements, but it will be a definite needs to improve this if you intend to take this article for a featured review. *There is some problem with the reference formatting. Each web reference must include an access date. Ref #35 has a syntax problem.

• Regarding the access date, can you expand on this? The only web references I can see in the article do have an access date specified. There are a number of news references for which a URL is also provided, but they are not actually web references. They are printed news and magazine refs, with page numbers, for which URLs happened to be available so they are also included. In fact, the {{cite news}}-based references do have access dates, but that template does not display them.

  I see a few refs that do not have retrieved dates. 36, 38, & 49 (which is missing publisher and author also). The external links also need to have accessdates. I find it easiest to use a {{cite web}} template for that. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - sort of. The {{cite news}} template accepts the accessdate parameter but does not display it, presumably because it is a print source...even if it also contains a URL. I think the fact that a web reference is available today but might not be at some other time isn't sufficient reason to force an accessdate to display if it was originally a print source. I know of no discussion on this point but suspect it has been had since the template doesn't display it. Indeed, in the template's documentation for this parameter, it states "Full date when item was accessed, if it was found on line. This is not needed when the article is itself clearly dated. In such a case, accessdate, if used at all, should be commented out so as not to be visible to the ordinary reader."

As a further question on this point - can you expand on the accessdate request for external links? Specifically...an example of how this would be implemented? It's not something I've commonly seen...although of course I understand most articles aren't GA status.

If you are sourcing from newspapers, and have added the links afterwards, then that is acceptable. I was assuming you had use the web as the source, rather than the actual paper. If you are using the paper, and using cite news, than the access dates are not needed in those instances.

Typically I do use other sources rather than the web (technically still the web but library searches which access the print versions). The placement of URLs in these cases is for convenience so that people who do not have access to those resources (or don't know they have access) can still get to it if it's available online. In the unusual (for me, anyway) case that the web was the source but I didn't have other access to an original printed source, I default to the web template instead. Basically, if I didn't see it with my own eyes in either a PDF or a Lexis-Nexus type of database search, it's a {{cite web}}, otherwise it's a {{cite news}}.  Frank  |  talk  15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also reviewed WP:EL and it appears that the requirment for accessdates on external links has been changed at some point in the last monthes - so I was mistaken on that point. The way in which you currently have them formatted is acceptable. Sorry for the confusion! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Some questions that should be awnsered by the article:
  • What year did he graduate from Princeton?

 Done

• • In the Senate, Bradley acquired a reputation for being somewhat aloof and was thought of as a "policy wonk",[21] specializing in complex reform initiatives. Somewhat aloof on what? Who called him a "polic wonk" and why? This is not made clear. "Somewhat" may also be a WP:Weasel word depending on its use here.
• On social issues, Bradley's record has been described as "reliably liberal". On economic issues, he was a "committed tax cutter" who supported Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. Who described him these ways? A certain newspaper? A certain person? A number of people? Supporters, Opponents?

 Done (Removed the paragraph completely; it did seem vague and didn't contribute to the article, at least not without further details.)

• There is not much information on his senate campaigns, really. Who did he run against, what was the campaign issues about?

Some extra wording on this has been added, but I agree it could eventually use more, and probably electoral history as well.

If you can fix up these issues the article should pass. I am placing the review on hold for one week for these improvements to made. Good luck! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and pass this GA review now. You have brought it up to what I feel to be a minimum standard for a good article. There is still alot of information that could be added into this article, and it still needs alot of work to continue improving it. To take it to the next level, it will be important to focus on expanding the content primarily, and to a lesser degree cleaning up the prose for a better read and finding more comprehensive sources on his life. His political career could use the most expansion. Good job so far! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and while I'm not necessarily going to jump right into it, I agree with your assessment of what would be a good future direction for the article.  Frank  |  talk  03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)