Jump to content

Talk:Vancouver Grizzlies relocation to Memphis/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

GA Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    a bit rough but good enough for GA passage.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    One fact about Laurie's attempts to buy Colorado sports teams isn't on topic but the rest is fine.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article meets GA criteria. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

[edit]
  • Writing is a little rough, I made a couple of edits to clean some of it up, I don't think it precludes passages to GA but here's a suggestion of what I mean: "The first four Grizzlies seasons had given average attendance in the middle third of the league." Recommended rewrite: "Attendance for the first four Grizzlies season were in the middle third of the league." The subject is attendance not the first four Grizzlies seasons. Again not enough to preclude GA passage but I thought I'd mention it.
  • The comprehensiveness of the lead is fine.

Background

[edit]
  • You have a lot of hard spaces, not sure those are necessary, I'm not an expert though and again not part of the GA Criteria.
  • Is there information on why the league handicapped the expansion teams so much? It seems counter productive to make it so difficult for them, they are already hampered by location and currency exchange issues why would the league hamstring them so significantly?
    • I believe that this was because of the success of among others Orlando Magic who did some extremely good draft picks. I found some comments on forums about this, but nothing from reliable sources. I can take a look later on for more info and refs on this. Arsenikk (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of ownership

[edit]
  • Why did McCaw want to sell the Grizzlies in 1999?
    • The sources only indirectly say this, but he would make a nice profit selling the club. It seems that McCaw saw the purchase and sale of the club as a way to make money. However, the sources do not say this directly. Arsenikk (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead states Laurie attempted to buy the Grizz in 2000 though this section says the offer was made in 1999. Perhaps we're talking semantics here, when did he officially attempt to buy the team? Was it in 1999 or 2000? It's a minor issue but worth noting.
  • The info on Laurie's bid for the Colorado Avalanche, Nuggets and arena isn't on topic and doesn't really have a place in this article. Once he walked away from the table his story should end.

Reasons for relocation

[edit]
  • Professor Jones' opinion is cited in the article, what makes him credible to comment on the Grizzlies situation? I read in the source that he is an expert in sports economics, I think this should be noted in the article. Just saying he's a professor isn't enough, you should establish that he is an expert in this field.
  • There's a lot in this section about the NBA restrictions placed on Toronto and Vancouver, it might be good to indicate why the teams had such handicaps.
  • It would probably be good to put in a sentence or two comparing Toronto's fortunes to Vancouver's as a way to show that it wasn't just about the draft picks, as I read through one of your sources it was interesting to note that Toronto was doing far more with a smaller payroll, thanks primarily to Vince Carter.

Relocation

[edit]
  • Dates are given here but what year? It isn't spelled out as I can see.
  • There are reasons why Memphis and Louisville had advantages over Anaheim and New Orleans given in the previous section but why did Haisley ultimately pick Memphis? What separated Memphis from Louisville?
  • Final game vs final match, seems a bit odd, I assume the Rockets game is notable as the last one in GM Place and the Warriors game was in Oakland but notable as the last game as the Vancouver Grizzlies? Is that correct? Perhaps this could be spelled out a bit better, also if you're going to give the score of one game you should probably give the score of both.

Aftermath

[edit]
  • Is there a source for the 100M cumulative loss fact? This should be sourced if it is not.
  • I would couch the paragraph about all the movement of teams in terms that the Grizzlies were the first of 3 NBA teams to relocate in the first decade of 2000, and part of a trend of major professional sports franchises moving out of Canada.

References

[edit]
  • Formatting looks good, no discrepencies there.
  • Most of the information is accurately and adequately referenced.
  • Refs 14 and 42 appear to be dead links, please check and if so fix.

Overall

[edit]
  • I think the article is very close to GA though there are a couple of areas to fix:
  • There are a couple of issues with comprehensiveness: why did McCaw want to sell the team? Why did Haisley settle on Memphis? The issue of the NBA hamstrining expansion teams isn't necessarily a comprehensive issue it's more of an interesting part to the story. Not really necessary to this subject though.
  • A couple dead links and I'd like to see a ref for the fact that the team has lost $100M. That could be a disputed or controversial statement.
  • Is there an image of their current arena? See checklist, not a reason to not pass but it just seems odd not to have a pic of their current arena.
  • That's about it the rest are nitpicky things that don't necessarily fall w/in the GA criteria.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_Grizzlies_relocation_to_Memphis/GA1&oldid=1084086495"