Talk:NBA Store/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • You don't need to have individual player jersey statistics for the New York Store given in both the text and the table. Perhaps change it to something like the China section, where you have interesting information or comparisons in the text, while the full information stays in the table. Also, perhaps add a table (or add to the existing table) the information on team jersey sales - it's easier to read in table format than text.

   • I removed the individual player jersey statistics for NYC from the text. GateKeeper^(X) @ 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Also, all information on sales should be moved to the Sales section - it's discouraged to have a section that is made up solely of a table and an image gallery.

   • Hi, I am with Wikiproject NBA and will help the nominator in this GA review. I remove the unneed heading for the Sales section.—Chris! _ct 06:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   • You don't need to wikilink terms or names any more frequently than once a section. For example, you don't need to wikilink players names twice in the same paragraph when discussing sales.

   • I fixed some overlinking issue.—Chris!_ct 06:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   • OK, the above fixes look good. Now the main thing is layout and prose.

   • The layout of the article is still crowded with images. Text should not be sandwiched between infoboxes, images and tables. I think that the only way you're going to be able to have everything non-sandwiched is to remove the picture of the fan posing, and redistribute some of the other graphics.

   • I moved the images around. Hopefully, the layout looks better now.—Chris! _ct 23:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • With the last sentence in the New York City section, (In addition to the NBA Store...), what are you trying to accomplish? What does the addition of the information on these other stores add to the article?

   • Removed the last sentence, it was out of order and added little to the article. GateKeeper^(X) @ 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref 25 (Forbes article) deadlinks.

   • Fixed ref 25, no longer a deadlink. GateKeeper^(X) @ 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Is it really necessary to have two references for a statement like "Established in the fall of 1998" and three references for a statement like "the 35,000-square-foot (3,300 m2) store" in the New York City section? This seems like overkill, but I may be missing a controversy here...

   • Fixed—Chris! _ct 06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

1. 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):

   • I am unsure about the need for the gallery of four images in the Sales section. One of these is a duplicate of the lead image, one is a fairly far away shot of the front door with blurry cars in front of it, and two are shots of the inside that show less than the image farther up in the New York City section. This whole gallery could probably be removed. The only image that I would even consider keeping is the one of the fan posing with the cardboard players, and then only keeping it if there was someplace to put it in the text without scrunching things.

   • Chris! removed the excess images, and now there is only one (the fan posing) from the original group. GateKeeper^(X) @ 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have a few layout, image and reference issues with this article that I would like to see addressed, so I am placing the review on hold for now. When I see this issues being addressed (or discussed), I will take another look through the article to complete a full prose review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   The changes that have been made so far are good. I've made a couple more comments above, regarding layout and prose, and once these are finished the article should be able to be passed to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   Much better! Thank you for all of the work you've put into this article, and I am passing it to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)