Wikipedia:Peer review/Basketball/archive1
Appearance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Basketball)
This article has come a long way since its beginning - a fair resemblance of the path to a featured article (though not exact) - and I reckon it could be looking at FA candidacy some time. There are some minor touch-ups that I can't do (namely, sourcing of the history section, and an image with player positions indicated) but I think it could have a go, and I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Neonumbers 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Needs a much longer lead (one or two paragraphs long that summarize the entire article concisely, see WP:Lead). Needs more references and possibly footnotes for some inline citations (see Wikipedia:Footnote). A color photo for the top would be good instead of a black and white one. Looking good so far, has potential as a featured article candidate. — Wackymacs 13:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll see what I can do (some time later tonight); of course anyone's invited to help. Neonumbers 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lead section; come take a look at it. (The article is in danger of oversize again... as long as it doesn't grow more it should be fine.) Neonumbers 08:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll see what I can do (some time later tonight); of course anyone's invited to help. Neonumbers 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would put the rules first after the introduction and try to make them super-simple for people (say, Pakistanis) who are new to the sport. See the American football article for an attempt to do this. -- Mwalcoff 00:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I could try, but this will be a very difficult task. Basketball's nature is not simple, and the current rules section is already very simplified. (In fact, I have on many occasions simplified and in some cases even reverted changes to that section, which added more detail than I considered necessary, and also put comments at the top of each rules sub-section to discourage people from adding over-detailed information.) Without defending the article, I would put the history section first; I think that is more appropriate. However, this gives me an idea: to put basic ideas (of rules) into the lead paragraph. Thanks for your comment, very much appreciated. Neonumbers 07:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)