Jump to content

Talk:Earl Strom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeEarl Strom was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 8, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Re-work article

[edit]

I have Strom's book and I'm going to re-work this bio based on information I come across in the book. Hopefully I can get this up to GA status, which would be a first for a referee. RyguyMN 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks RyguyMN for contributing heavily to this article, it's massively comprehensive now. Here are some of my comments (not meant to criticise because he's done a tremendous job already) --

  1. This is rather trite but I keep forgetting -- can a couple give birth or is it just the mother who can do so?
  2. While not the strongest barriers to quality, there is a little overuse of "Strom". The simple alternative of "he" should suffice, but it is also possible to sprinkle things like "the veteran official" or something along those lines, just for variety. But again, not a barrier to GA in my opinion (postscript: I have injected variety in most places, with the exception of the 1973-1990 section)
  3. There is probably a better way to bridge to, and introduce, the 4th, 5th and 6th paragraphs found in the NBA section. As it stands they are a little disjointed, even though I think the events are presented chronologically. In fact, it is because it is a little too chronological; maybe a thematic connection between events may be useful. (postscript: I've actually tried to reorganise the content without changing the substance in the NBA section, will try to do the same for the other sections -- update: I have worked all the way up to the 1973-1990 section)
  4. "Strom fed of the energy off the fans when officiating games and the small attendance sizes in the ABA made him feel depressed" -- the start of this statement sounds queer, but I could be wrong. (postscript: I have edited it according to what I think might have been meant)
  5. Re: "Return to the NBA" and "NBA (1973-1990)" sections -- it does seem the latter is subsumable under the former. But I understand a constraint is that the 1973-1990 section is already very long. So, a possibility is to have subsections within the 1973-1990 section, but only because it makes it less bulky.
  6. Purely for aesthetics, you can use those bulky quote marks for the legacy section, as found in Charles Barkley, or quoteboxes, as found in Tony Parker, if you so wish.
  7. Re: the part about Julius Erving, while I think that the first two sentences of that paragraph are intended to set the context, it could probably be presented in a more concise manner. (postscript: I've tried fixing this)
  8. In the lead, while it's almost painfully obvious to explain why he's credited as being the greatest, from an encyclopedic point of view (actually, it's just WP), it may be better to say exactly who credits him. Preferrably, the person who credits him should be an esteemed person or has the necessary credentials.
  9. I'd also add that the lead should be longer -- see wp:lead for details.
  10. Re: 1965 Eastern Finals -- I'm trying to understand exactly what was Strom's involvement. Is it because he officiated in a cast? The Havlicek story seems to form the greater focus however.
  11. "Throughout the year, Pollack noted how many times the home or visting team was victorous and who were the officials working the game" -- which year is this referring to?
  12. For the references, the same book is used many times, and I don't think there's a need (by way of WP guidelines) to spell out the reference in full each time. Perhaps a short form can be used, followed by the page number.

All in all I've applied mostly a light touch to this article, wikifying, making minor changes to word choices, edited some headings, re-arranged the order of some content to make things flow better, and rephrased certain parts to make things tighter. My view is that the area needing most work is connecting various events in his career to make the prose flow better. If left unchanged, I think they stand as events that are presented very disjointedly and may not make good reading. Good luck. Chensiyuan 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Earl Strom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: 2 disambiguations found: foreman and Jim Gardner. No suitable targets could be resolved. Suggest de-linking these.

Linkrot: One dead link found - this has been tagged since March 2010 (ref # 16 [1]).

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Earl grew up in the household as the youngest of seven children comprising five boys and two girls. "seven children comprising" is rather clumsy.
    which was uncommon for lesser experienced referees at the time. "less" would be better than "lesser"
    In fact, the former was assigned to any seventh and deciding game in a series during this time. Better to use just "he" rather than "the former" as the use of the "the former" introduces possible confusion as to who is being referred to, Strom or Rudolph.
    There is a high incidence of the use of "officiating" and "officiated". Can the word use be varied? E.g., "oversee", "referee" (as a verb), "supervise".
    Memorable encounter with Wilt Chamberlain This section heading is a little misleading, I think. Surely the encounter was "with" Gack?
    After more than a decade's experience in the game, Strom was offered a salary contract over 82 games for $16,000 for the first time by Commissioner Walter Kennedy in August 1969. A little confusing. Which league was Kennedy commissioner of? Was Strom paid game to game previously? Please clarify.
    While Strom earned more than twice as much in the ABA than the NBA, he soon became disenchanted with the ABA for the lack of big name superstars and arenas that the NBA provided. The repetition of the intials gartes a little. Could this sentence be restructured to avoid that?
    Controversy again did not elude Strom in the ABA. In a 1970 game between the Texas Chaparrals and Denver Rockets in Denver, Colorado, he was attacked by a fan who came onto the court after Strom confronted the fan who was using profanity Clumsy. Please rephrase: "a fan", "the fan". "Controversy again did not elude"?
    Encouraged with the support of Wayne Embry and Pat Williams "by", rather than "with".
    Strom filed a $275,000 suit against the NBA in December 1972 for breach of an oral contract when John Nucatola told Strom that he could return to the league. Rather confusing, "for breach of an oral contract when John Nucatola told Strom that he could return to the league" It seems that the law suit got him the contract, is that what is meant?
    Layden verbally abused Strom to entice Strom to eject the coach out of the game. "Strom", "Strom" in quick succession.
    Strom originally was going to be suspended six games by the commissioner, but was changed to a $600 fine. Surely needs something like "the penalty was chnaged to"
    Bavetta insisted, which reversed Strom's call and the Nets wound up with the victory. "which reversed Strom's call" - a little clumsy - surely something like "Bavetta insisted on over-ruling Strom's call and the Nets wound up with the victory."?
    These incidents led to Strom being suspended the remainder of the 1979 NBA Playoffs and was required to apologize to Kovler surely "and he was required"?
    The sports reporter meet Strom in a hotel lobby "met" not "meet"
    When the article was published, the reporter wrote that he and Strom were joined by an assistant coach, whom Strom had bought a drink, and the tendencies for Strom to go into pressboxes to drink a cup of coffee and to talk with spectators that he knew in the stands. "whom" is wong, rephrase, perhams "for whom". The final clause should turned into a separate sentence.
    While the league had approved the article, Strom was fined $2,000 and suspended a portion of the playoffs. "While"? "Although" would be correct.
    During the mid-1980s, Strom had a couple incidents with team personnel being in the referees' locker room, which was against league rules "had a couple incidents"? Ungrammatical.
    In 1985, Dallas Mavericks owner Don Carter entered the locker room and accused Strom of having a vendetta against Dick Motta, coach of the Mavericks. The next year during the 1986 NBA Playoffs game between the Atlanta Hawks and Boston Celtics at Boston Garden in Boston, Massachusetts, Hawks coach Mike Fratello was attacked by a fan. Fratello walked into the officials locker room and reported the incident to Strom. Strom eventually was fined and worked a couple more playoff games that year." There seems no direct link or causality between these separate statements.
    It was through this column that Strom discovered he had a malignant brain tumor, a form of cancer, by doctors after his wife, Yvonne, found grammatical errors as she prepared to type the column on a computer Perhaps "It was while writing this column that..."
    Strom began surgery on the tumor in January 1994, which was successful, but he could not overcome the effects of the cancer and died on July 10, 1994. "began"? Surely "underwent"?
    Legacy: The collection of quotes at the beginning of this section is untidy, resembling a list.
    This is in contrast to today's officials who are said to blend into the background during a game and all bear a similar appearance and use of hand signals. Rather clumsy - how about using the direct quote (attributed) from the source"The toughest thing is getting consistency from the staff. I don't think you'll see the Earl Stroms, the flamboyant types, anymore. You've seen the last of that breed. They want them all to look alike and use the same signals. Today, refs are in the background. There aren't many refs who if you said their name you'd recognize them."
    Overall: there are a lot fo examples of poor writing highlighted above, but the entire artcile could do with a thorough copy-edit for style, grammar, and clarity.
    Lead I do not believe that the lead provides a succinct summary of the whole article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I made some reference fixes.diff
    A number of citations to the autobiography could be consolidated so they refer to the same pages, e.g. ref #19 (Strom et al., 134), ref #20 (Strom et al., 134–135) and ref #21 (Strom et al., 134–135). This would make the reference list a little less unwieldy.
    One dead link as per note above. Also two disambiguations which cannot be resolved.
    All on-line sources check out, support the statements and appear to be reliable sources. I assume good faith for off-line.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Inevitably the article concentrates on memorable refereeing incidents, which mostly involve disputes and disagreements, but I feel that it is somewhat unbalanced with only a few sentences focussing on Strom's mission to improve standards of play and officiating.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    Can we have a caption for the image in the infobox?  Done
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. The major point is the poor prose quality. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As work has started on the article I shall extend the hold for a further seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, following on from this massage on my talk page, I shall fail this nomination now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earl Strom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversies"

[edit]

The article lists "controversies" that are little more than someone whining about a call they didn't like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Earl Strom. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earl_Strom&oldid=1197718983"