- Comments from KV5
- "in National Basketball Association" - the National Basketball Association
- "In the Rockets debut season" - Rockets'
- "But after drafting Elvin Hayes first overall in the 1969 NBA Draft," - Sentences do NOT start with BUT. Also, Hayes was drafted first in the 1968 draft.
- What do Hayes, Malone, etc. have to do with the team's season records? There needs to be more correlation made. Also, discuss more about best/worst seasons, etc.
- "After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone was acquired to replace him." - "After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone replaced him." - remove redundant wording
- "MVPs" - you must state explicitly what an acronym means before using
- "in his first year" - remove Easter Egg link per WP:PIPE
- "They did not win their first championship until 1994, when Olajuwon led them to the championship, and 1995." - you have a linked year and an unlinked year; also, the last part of this sentence makes no sense. "And 1995" isn't a clause.
- "from 1999–2003" - remove dash, replace with "to"
- Many of the things in the key would be better explained using footnotes (see Philadelphia Phillies seasons for an example).
- "4th *" - all symbols should be next to their number, not separated
- Per WP:BOLDFACE, do not use bold text as an indicator in the table. Replace with a symbol or italics.
- "adding the absolute difference in wins" - Explain or link absolute difference
- "50 game" - 50-game
- "The Western Division was renamed to Western Conference" - the Western Conference
- You use W-L% in some tables and Win% in others. Be consistent.
- References: use the same format for all dates, and the publisher of all Basketball-Reference.com links must be Sports Reference LLC. Also, one BB-Ref link is not capitalized like the others.
- I'm not a big fan of the table being split up into so many pieces. I would rather see one cohesive unit instead of three small tables.
I will return to review further once these concerns are addressed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed most of the trouble spots, which should be obvious. However, there are a couple of things I left:
- "Many of the things in the key would be better explained using footnotes" Personally, I think it is neater to keep it in a table key. My personal preference, but I'll change it if you insist.
- "I'm not a big fan of the table being split up into so many pieces. I would rather see one cohesive unit instead of three small tables." I've combined 2 tables, but the all-time record table I left separate. I think it looks better without tacking on to the main table.
- "What do Hayes, Malone, etc. have to do with the team's season records? There needs to be more correlation made. Also, discuss more about best/worst seasons, etc." I've added in the lead about their best/worst seasons. Also, I think the correlation of Hayes, Malone, Olajuwon to their record is made clearly ("Malone won 2 MVPs, they advanced to the Finals", "He led them to...", "He took them...", etc).
- "before being moved to" - before moving to
- Table headers that are in the key should be bolded to show that they are headers.
- Re-alphabetize your key.
- Since the alphabetizing in the footnotes starts over, you need to have a header delineating the section changes (lead, table, etc.).
- Navbox: "San Diego/Houston Rockets seasons" box does not currently link to this article. Change the title to link here or remove navbox.
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored back to two tables format because the colspans affect the sorting. I don't think it is possible to combine the tables without taking away the sorting function.—Chris! ct 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Well, readers who only read the table will be confused by that. Also, I don't see why we need to combine the tables. The current layout looks good to me.—Chris! ct 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's one team, one franchise, with one set of records. Splitting it up makes the sorting incorrect, because you aren't looking at a complete data set. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have all your comments been addressed? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved comments are under the cap. If they are still out, they aren't resolved yet, unless further changes have been made per the above notes. I don't have time to re-review right now, because I'm on my way to work now, but I will take a look later today if these were completed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have your other points, although I'm not exactly sure about your last point: "Since the alphabetizing in the footnotes starts over, you need to have a header delineating the section changes (lead, table, etc.)" But I think I've got it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|