Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Barkley/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:23, 26 May 2009 [1].

Charles Barkley

edit
Nominator(s): Zodiiak (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a Good Article for quite some time and has continually improved. It is well written, factual, referenced, and current. Zodiiak (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • unformatted refrence in section on DUI conviction. Might it also be possible to better organise the subsections of "Post-basketball life" -- they seem a little disjointed at the moment.
  • "Under the tutelage of Malone, Barkley was able to manage his weight and learned to prepare and condition himself properly for a game." -- should provide a reference?
  • "He earned his third straight All-Star Game appearance and was named to the All-NBA First team for the second straight season." -- should provide a reference?
  • "He was named to the All-NBA First Team for the third consecutive year and earned his fourth All-Star selection." -- should provide a reference?
  • "Despite Barkley's proclamation to Jordan, that it was "destiny" for the Suns to win the title, they were defeated in six games by the Bulls." -- should provide a reference?
  • Thinking aloud here re: other aspects of his personal life. Is/was he married? Does/did he have a religion (I think he has)? Chensiyuan (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the college section seems a trifle short. I seem to remember that Auburn's football coach wanted Barkley to also join the football team, just to play defending field goal attempts, to knock them down. That might be worth including, if an RS can be conveniently found.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thanks for the comments! I will be working on addressing these issues ASAP. Zodiiak (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most dead links and unreliable sources have been removed.—Chris! ct 05:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most? Not all? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Reply:' I'm reviewing all links and sources and will have this issue addressed. Thanks for your comments! Zodiiak (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • In the lead, give initials after the first use of the National Basketball Association.
  • In the last sentence of the lead, get rid of "also".
  • College: "finish at the opposing end with a rim-rattling two-handed dunk." This gets a little too much like a profile in a sports publication for my tastes, or at least my Wiki-tastes.
  • "three All-SEC (1983-84) selections". When was the third?
  • Use italics for the Birmingham Post-Herald.
  • NBA career: There is pretty much no way that the fair-use SI cover can be justified, and I recommend removing it. Also, the reference says nothing about how his fame led to a Sports Illustrated cover.
  • Try not to start a sentence with "But". Instead, try something like, "For the first time since the 1974-75 season, however".
  • Italics for The Sporting News and maybe Basketball Weekly (not sure if that's a printed publication).
  • "and with the Sixers failing to make the postseason..." is using a somewhat awkward sentence structure. This page has many details on noun plus- ing structures, including how to fix them. I recommend reading it, for it will prove useful in your future article writing. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this. "The Chuck Wagon" is a fairly obscure nickname, at least compared to the two currently mentioned in the lead. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to challenge your fandom, but I think if you ask any basketball fan if they know a basketball player nicknamed the Chuck Wagon, they could tell you who it is. Do a quck google on Chuck Wagon Barkley and see what you get. That is one of his main nicknames. I would oppose for breadth just for exclusion of this popular nickname for him. The article did not even note that he is nicknamed Chuck until I added that earlier. He is know both as Chuck and the Chuck Wagon. If this were my FA nom, I would find five or ten reputable source documenting this nickname in a flash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not saying the nickname doesn't exist. It's just not nearly as popular as the other two nicknames (which are the only ones mentioned here). Look at the Google results: "Round Mound of Rebound" gets 17,500 hits, "Sir Charles" gets 57,100 hits, and "Chuck Wagon" gets 456 hits. You'll see similar results with Google News or Google Books. "Chuck Wagon" might possibly be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it's not lead-worthy, IMO. I will agree that "Chuck" is a common nickname, although we probably won't find any sources that explictly say that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have shown is that it is clearly less common than the others. However, when he got inducted into the HOF, the NBA.com blog used the Chuck Wagon in its blog article title. Many reputable sources refer to him as the Chuck Wagon. Matt Doherty refers to him as the Chuck Wagon in his blog. I think your source g-hits test may be biased because articles that use the Chuck Wagon nickname might refer to him as Chuck Barkley instead of Charles Barkley. The Chuck Wagon Barkley gets 7420 hits. It is not so minor a nickname.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to drag this out any more -- I'll leave it to the primary contributors to say what they think - but I should point out that that search will result in lots of false positives (like this). Zagalejo^^^ 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes any google search results in false positives. However, my point is that every basketball fan knows who the Chuck Wagon is. Yet, the article omits the nickname as if it is not associated with him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is User:Zodiiak. He is quite silent for a nominator. In addition to all the general repsonses, I would like to understand his thoughts on the well-known Chuck Wagon nickname.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As an NBA fan, I had never heard of "Chuck Wagon" until this FAC, whereas I would know instantly who "Sir Charles" and "Round Mound of Rebound" refer to. Honestly, with the major problems that Laser brain has found, I'm not worried right now about whether another nickname is included or not. There are bigger fish to fry. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gods honest truth is that I could only believe that a person who says they have never heard the 7700 g-hit nickname "Chuck Wagon" were not big pro basketball fans during the Barkley era or they are playing dumb. It is a nickname used by Sports Illustrated for godness sakes. ESPN references it. If you don't know the nicknames Sports Illustrated and ESPN use, what kind of fan are you? His colleagues and peers such as Matt Doherty use it. Major newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Arizona Republican, and Denver Post. There was even a controversy about whether ESPN's Steve Levy should use the nickname.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that I'm not up on every third-tier nickname given to NBA players during my childhood, right? :-) Still don't see why it's that important to include it, especially when there are major referencing issues. Judging by Laser's comments, in order to mention it the article would have to say why he was called that. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I know of no articles that explain the derivation of every nickname. Most nicknames have multiple meanings. Many stem from drunken escapades with public explanations that omit all the details. There are probably all kinds of reasons for nicknames. It is like explaining artistic interpretation or poetic meaning. There are always many. Do the other NBA FAs explain all the nicknames?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, you say "major referencing issues". This makes no sense. I gave you Sports Illustrated, ESPN, A half dozen major newspapers and you question references. I could give you another two dozen major newspapers that use the nickname if you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I misread his comments. I'm not even sure at this point. The referencing issues were the ones Laser brought up, not anything involving the nickname. That's what this FAC should be focusing on right now, not a dispute over a nickname that's taking up almost half the page. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as you've presented it, I'm afraid. The sources barely support any of that, beyond the mere existence of the nickname. You're just guessing that "Meat Wagon" evolved into "Chuck Wagon". It's very plausible that the nicknames were coined independently. But could you please hold off on the nickname stuff for a little while, and let Zodiiak et al have a chance to respond to the other comments? The nickname is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't dominate this discussion. We can hash things out at Talk:Charles Barkley if you like. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do the sources say?
  1. We have about two or three dozen references from reliable sources documenting that it was a commonly known, widely-used nickname.
  2. We have both Sports Illustrated and ESPN documenting that the most important sources of sports information on the planet consider it to be a common nickname.
  3. We have little or no precedent for the derivation of a nickname to be required in an article. I read the Magic Johnson FA and saw no derivation.
  4. O.K., it was a leap that it derived from Meat Wagon, however, it is not a leap that his teams depended on the Chuck Wagon like a chuckwagon.
  1. "The Chuck Wagon had been rolling along at its usual pace until it was ambushed Saturday by a tenacious defense." [4]
  2. "a Rockets defense that used Robert Horry as the anchor on the Chuck Wagon" [5]
  3. "Now, the Rockets will try to ride the Chuck Wagon back into the winner's circle." [6]
  1. We have a controversy over use of the nickname by ESPN's Steve Levy.[7]
  2. We have its common use in the
  1. The Post and Courier [8]
  2. Sun-Sentinel [9]
  3. Intelligencer Journal [10]
  4. The Arizona Republic[11]
  5. by Peter Vecsey in the The Buffalo News [12]
  6. I am getting bored, I don't feel like rattling of another dozen or so, but rest assured, I am not even half way through.
Since when at an FA discussion do we say we have a content problem in need of hashing out, but let's not address it during this FA. Let's hash it out here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The absence or presence of a nickname shouldn't determine if an article is an FA. It's a trivial issue. There are much more important things to worry about here. Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I strongly agree. Any ideas on how the Post-Basketball life material can be broken up for better use would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Zodiiak (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one problem is that almost all of Barkley's non-basketball activities (except for the role model commercial) are listed under "Post-basketball life". There's no easy place to mention things like his Saturday Night Live appearance, etc, which occurred during his playing career. Maybe we could change the scope of "Post-basketball life" to "Life outside of basketball", or something. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. Some prose problems, but more serious concerns about sourcing and how sources have been used. Below, I easily located statements that are outright unsourced or that use inappropriate sources. The article heavily relies on NBA.com, which can't possibly be considered a neutral source and shouldn't be used for anything other than basic facts and stats. I'm afraid this needs lots of work, including a major audit of sources, and should be withdrawn.
    • "Nicknamed 'Sir Charles' for his aggressive and outspoken demeanor, and 'The Round Mound of Rebound', for his unusual build and talent as a player ..." A couple issues here. First, this isn't what you say later in the text. You just say it was his physical style of play that earned these nicknames. You can't say things in the lead that you don't back up later in the text. Second, the source for this needs to be better than an electronic encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. You need a secondary source, and a good one, and a clear explanation of how these nicknames were derived.
    • "most dominating" Hmm.. most dominant?
    • "He was frequently involved in on- and off-court fights" Fights in what sense? Physical blows? Verbal disagreements? Need a less vague term.
    • "Short for a power forward ..." This and similar statements ("despite being shorter than the average center" and "yet shorter than most power forwards he faced") have no discernible source, and are thus original research. The third one is ostensibly sourced to the NBA.com biography, but that can't be used for such statements.
    • "He was one of the NBA's most versatile players and accurate scorers capable of scoring from anywhere on the court and established himself as one of the NBA's premier clutch players." Peacock statement in the extreme, and sourced to NBA.com. Many more like it.
--Laser brain (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: Thanks for your review. Please let me address some of the issues you have noted.
        • First, I strongly disagree with your comments regarding NBA.com as a source for several reasons. First, if you look at the Basketball FA's, such as Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Bill Russell, etc., NBA.com is one of the major resources used and is peppered throughout as a primary resource. Next, while I agree we should definitely find substitutes for certain statements, NBA.com is used mainly to cover "basic facts" -- i.e. All-Star game appearances, stats, and trades.
        • Next, re: nicknames -- Physical style of play and aggressiveness are complimentary/synonymous. If you feel we need to specifically use the same terminology, then this is an easy fix of course. We can also find a clearer source -- I'm working on reviewing all sources to ensure optimal standarads and to address any of the underlying issues here.
        • When I think of a Fight, I think of Physical confrontation. Verbal disagreements are just that, disagreements. But this can easily be fixed.
        • Not sure I understand why NBA.com cannot be used as a source for being under sized? Does that mean something like NY Times is better? What source would actually make it OK to use? (see my first bullet)
        • Again, I fail to understand why NBA.com is not a reliable source for this. I can easily dig up hundreds of other sources stating the same thing, I simply chose NBA.com because it is a primary reliable source for this basketball related article. I'm sure the Bill Russell, Michael Jordan, and Tim Duncan articles use the source in a similar way.

Once again, I thank you for your response and review. Perhaps you could clarify why NBA.com is not sufficient enough and if locating alternative sources to address your primary concerns would help resolve the issues you have noted. Zodiiak (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a problem with NBA.com being used for basic facts and statistics. That much, I said above. I do have a problem with it being used to source anything that would be considered subjective, such as Barkley being "shorter than average". We don't know what research was done to write these bios, what editorial process there is, and so on. The NBA as an organization has a strong conflict of interest (its main goal is to promote itself and its players) so it cannot be considered neutral. How other articles use it is immaterial to this discussion. As for "physical style of play" and "aggressiveness" being synonymous, I disagree utterly. However, it is not for us to decide. We need to say what the source says and nothing more. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I see your point. I'll locate alternative sources for statements that can be considered subjective. I'll also follow-up with you to see if there is anything else that you feel may need to be supported by alternate sources. Thanks again for your feedback! Zodiiak (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, please excuse my absence from editing -- I was a bit short on wiki-time but have returned to read the comments. Second, thanks for the great recommendations and comments. I'm going to address all of the above comments/recommendations throughout the week and put a strike through the one's that have been fixed. As always, all comments and/or recommendations are welcomed. Thanks for taking the time to review! Zodiiak (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zodiiak, you may be unfamiliar with the discussion conventions here, but please do not strike another user's comments. It is for them to decide when their concerns have been addressed, and they will strike as needed. Please remove any instances where you have done this. --Laser brain (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charles_Barkley/archive1&oldid=1143874368"