Talk:Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As the nominator has already stated, this article does not currently meet GA standards. I disagree, however, that nothing can be done to improve it. The obvious problem is comprehensiveness, but sources appear to exist. I did a search and came up with a few sites:

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E0D81630F93AA35755C0A9629C8B63
• http://www.michigandaily.com/content/trophy-tour
• http://www.nba.com/news/legendstour_050420.html
• http://www.dhl.com.hk/publish/hk/en/press/Release_HK/2007/17_08_2007.high.html
• http://www.archives.gov/calendar/features/2004/december/
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_May_1/ai_n27220810
• http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/15/content_323502.htm
• http://www.nba.com/playoffs2006/trophy_tour_060418.html
• http://www.latimes.com/sports/custom/morningbriefing/la-sp-briefing28-2008aug28,0,776198.story

I believe that more can be added to this article, so I will place this nomination on hold. Comments and/or questions can be left here, as I have placed the article on my watchlist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me the sites.—Chris! _ct 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the changes I made? It has been seven days since the first review. Thanks —Chris! _ct 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a second opinion at WP:GAN and WT:GAN, as it is still a short article but might meet the GA criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an official second opinion, because I am thoroughly undecided on the issue, but I do think adding some headers and a proper lead would make it look less stub-like. Nikki311 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...the other lists in this possible Good/Featured Topic had lists of the winners (or the couple that I clicked on did). Is that not possible here? Nikki311 02:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki on both points. I think that two things that I think might help are (1) a short lead section (and headers, although the sections will be short), and (2) information about the teams that have held the trophy (eg. the Celtics were the first winners in 1984, which team has held it the most time, and a table like the "Winners" section of List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a good idea to have a list of winners here in table format. I think the resulting article would closely resemble List of NBA champions, a featured list. This page is more about the trophy itself, though I could at least mention about the winners.—Chris! _ct 18:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If all of the NBA champions get the trophy, I would see your point. Another option is to have a section with the header "Winners" (or something to that effect) with a main link to the List of NBA champions and a sentence or two describing that the NBA champions get the trophy (and maybe include the first winner and whoever has won it the most). Nikki311 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried it out in the article. What do you think? Feel free to revert if you hate it. :) Nikki311 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks good though I think a table of content is unnecessary since the article is short. I will remove it if no one objects.—Chris! _ct 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article looks good now. Any more comments/suggestions?—Chris! _ct 19:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Further review: The article is actually looking pretty good. The new information and the section headers have helped. I think it definitely has potential to reach GA status now. I just read through it and had two final concerns:

1. "playoffs and non-playoffs cities" - this is awkwardly phrased

reword —Chris! _ct 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I can't find proper sourcing information for the Spurs' trophis. Can you ask User:Dknights411 to verify that he/she is the one who took the picture? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to ask him this directly myself or ask him to comment here?—Chris! _ct 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I leave User:Dknights411 a message. [1] I also ask him to comment here.—Chris! _ct 05:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To respond, yes I took that picture myself. Do you guys need any more information? Dknights411 (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any more comments?—Chris! _ct 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just that someone with a Wikimedia account needs to add that information (Photo taken by original uploader ([[User:Dknights411]) to the image's description page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LarryOBrienTrophies.jpg. I've placed a couple of requests but haven't had any success in getting people to add the information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I fix it? I added a proper template on the image's description page at Wikimedia Commons.—Chris! _ct 05:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The date format is incorrect (it says December 5 instead of 20), but yes, you did. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit that I didn't think this article had much of a chance. From what I understand, though, one of the original purposes for the Good Article project was to provide assessment for shorter articles. I did some searcing for information, and all of the stuff I could find from reliable sources is now included in the article. To go through the GA criteria: (1) The article is well-written. I hope done some copyediting and proofreading. My concerns about the prose have all been addressed. (2) It is verifiable. All information is backed up with reliable, properly formatted, and up-to-date sources. (3) It is neutral. Point of view is not a concern in this article. (4) It is stable. No edit wars exist here. (5) It is as comprehensive as possible at this time. All available information is included in the article. (6) All images have proper licensing and sourcing information. In other words, it's short, but it's a Good Article. Congratulations! I am promoting it. From what I understand, this is part of a Featured Topic, and I wish you all the best with that. Thank you for your hard work and your patience with this article and its review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks —Chris! _ct 05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)