Talk:Grand Slam (PBA)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Slam (PBA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PapaJeckloy (talk · contribs) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Will review this article, moments later. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Well-written: a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct  Done b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  Done

2.Verifiable with no original research: a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline  Done b.it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial  Done c.statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines  Done d. it contains no original research. Done

3. Broad in its coverage  Done

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.  Done

5. Stable: it does not change significantly  Done

6. Illustrated:  Not done The article do not have any photo (Free or non-free), to the nominator please add a non-free file (one) in the article, to illustrate the points in the article, and i also see that you have many free photos of players and instances about Philippine Basketball Association, so you are freely to add a photo in the article, as it's a requirement for GA. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that the reviewer is not competent to identify issues with the prose, since not a single one was found, which is extraordinary in a GAN article. Even the best writers make typos or omit punctuation. The prose in this article, however, is not clear, and the grammar is not correct; that much is evident in the "1976 Crispa Redmanizers" section:

• The first sentence reads: "In the second season of the league, the Crispa Redmanizers became the first team to win all of the conference championships in a season, they have won the All-Philippine Championship, the third conference of the 1975 season, before they began their quest for the Grand Slam." This is two sentences, this first of which should end after "in a season". For the second sentence, the tense is wrong ("have" should be "had"), and I would remove the final clause, "before they began their quest for the Grand Slam" as unnecessary and tighten the rest. That sentence would now read, "They had won the All-Philippine Championship in the 1975 season."
• A later sentence contains the problematic phrase "with an overall season record of 47-15 win-loss card". The simplest thing to do is to delete "win-loss card"; if it's necessary, then the earlier part of the sentence needs revising.

There are additional prose issues in the rest of the article. Since they need to be identified and fixed for this to achieve the prose standards required for a GA, I would recommend closing the review and putting this back in the queue for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Slam (PBA)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Slam (PBA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235248/http://www.tempo.com.ph/2011/10/fond-memories-of-billy-ray-bates/ to http://www.tempo.com.ph/2011/10/fond-memories-of-billy-ray-bates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)