Talk:Celtics–Lakers rivalry/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk • contribs • count) 08:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started reviewing this article and have some concerns over criteria 1a. While the grammor is generally good I feel there are too many WP:Peacock terms. Words like great, storied, grueling, infamously, famously, iconic etc should be avoided. There also is some editorialising which is a form of original research. I have reviewed the prose up to the Lull and rebuilding section. I will stop for now to give you a chance to respond.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The biggest issue is the use of too many WP:Peacock words to describe players and events. Words like greatest, iconic, legendary etc shouldn't really be used unless they are attributed to someone. Some of the prose could be tightened up, abbreviations spelt out and some of the tense seems wrong. I have left examples for the first third of the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References seem reliable enough for the topic. There is a bit of editorialising with the wording, which has lead to the introduction of some original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It does go into a bit of unnecessary detail. It mentions players that joined with the team, but doesn't really elaborate on why that was important to the rivalry. For example They would not make it to the Finals again in this decade, but in 1975 they acquired Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Abul-Jabbar is not mentione until the finals section). I feel the finals summaries are pushing the focused barrier too. There is a lot of repetition with the History section. They go into a lot of detail about each series and have significantly increased the size of the article. I am not sure I would fail on this, but would need a good explanation of why it is set out this way. Personally I would consider doing away with the History header and make each Sub header under it a level two heading. I would then add the finals detail in a subsection under each appropriate heading. That would allow for some of the repetitive prose to be trimmed and make reading it more chronological.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Guessing a Lakers fan after reading this, but they have tried hard to even out the information for both teams. Could do with a little bit more weight to the Celtics, but not enough to fail on.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Fine
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 not convinced with the license for the photos from Steve Lipofsky. It would be good to see a link detailing that they are free and available to use.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

To date, Boston has won nine and L.A. three (with the Celtics having won the first eight). Would spell out L.A. Would avoid "to date".
During the first decade of the NBA in the 1950s, the Minneapolis Lakers had the first NBA dynasty Bit of an awkward sentence here. "First decade in the 1950s".
Minneapolis would win the Wrong tense
three BAA Finals were played between What is BAA?
Under Hall of Fame head coach John Kundla Coach of the Hall of Fame?
with the NBA's first superstar in George Mikan Can't find this in the cite
The Celtics would emerge behind early NBA star Bob Cousy by winning the 1957 NBA Finals and losing in 1958. I am not sure emerge behind is correct in this context.
This would mark the first Tense
It was after this move, and during this decade, that the rivalry would truly escalate. Reference
featuring greats such Greats is a WP:Peacock term.
and coach/GM What is GM? Should avoid using slashes
Three of those series (1962, 1966, and 1969) have gone seven games. Gone to seven games?
but it was small consolation in a decade where the Lakers went without a championship, every one of their Finals' losses in that decade coming at the hands of the Celtics Little bit of editorialising in this paragraph. "Small consolation" "dramatic" "infamous prediction"
They would not make it to the Finals again in this decade, but in 1975 they acquired Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ????????
The Celtics won the NBA Finals in 1974, and won again in 1976 but of redundancy. Would remove "and won again".
rivalry of the 1980s was actually laid down "actually" is not really encyclopedic. Needs a reference
In what was the most-watched college basketball game ever, Have to be careful as a more watched one could appear. Better to say was still the most watched college basketball game in 2008.
The final game of that series is memorable to the rivalry because Boston fans chanted for the 76ers, who were just about to eliminate their Celtics, to "Beat L.A.!" Would just say that they chanted "Beat L.A" not that it is memorable for it.
Some more editorialising
- long-awaited rematch
- finally had their revenge
In the 1987 NBA Finals, the two teams met for a tie-breaker of their 1980s Finals matches, I don't understand this. What is meant by tie-breaker.

Nominator no longer has time to spend on this so I am going to leave the review here. I hope someone can use the comments to improve it in the future. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]