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.
  • "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:

Chicago Sun-Times report:

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?
  • "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.

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

National:

Conference:

Records:

Professional career:

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"