Wikipedia:Peer review/2010–11 Oklahoma City Thunder season/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like ot take it to FA review. I think it would be a good exemplar for a professional team's season page moving forward. It should be FA quality now or close.
Thanks, BillTunell (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Wizardman: This article isn't FA-ready yet, and honestly it's not quite at GA quality yet either, but with a bit of work this article can get to that mark. Here are issues that I found:
- The lead needs expansion. For an article this size shoot for 3 paragraph.
- James Harden links to a disambiguation page; have it link to the right person.
- A lot of the NBA.com refs are not working. They are noted in green here. It might be temporary, but if not new URLs will have to be found or the refs replaced. There's also one deadlink in the article.
- The key dates don't really add anything to this article. They were probably nice when the season was progressing, but now that it's over it doesn't seem to fit.
- For the depth chart, I think it's supposed to be 12 active and 3 inactive. You have 13 and 2, looks like one shifted over; fix that.
- A salary of $57,884 doesn't sound right.
- You can take out the 2010s for September 12, August 15, and August 24, as it's already established that it's 2010.
- "Germany did not advance to the elimination-round phase of the comptetiion." competition.
- "As of July, the Thunder had no immediate plans to directly replace Adams." is this still true, or was the addition of Maz Trakh the replacement? if the latter make that clearer.
- Add some structure to both promotion and media sections. Right now it's just a bunch of one-sentence independent paragraphs; they should all be meshed together.
- For the draft acquisitions, converted the second and third grouping of bullet points to prose would be beneficial; the first one is fine as is.
- I'm not a fan of including a preseason game log. It seems like it just takes up space when all the games could probably be summed up in a paragraph. The season one's fine for me, though I'm not sure what FAC's opinion on them currently is.
- "Through December 10, 2010, the Thunder played a schedule which statistically ranked #5 in the NBA" 5th easiest or toughest?
- The season summary is a bit overpeppered with adjectives (i.e. strong/energetic performances, "Despite a frustrating series against the Dallas Mavericks to end the season, community spirit surrounding the Thunder remained high after the season", etc.). It's not overly bad, but limit them. A good rule of them on that is just to use it if the reference goes out of its way to note it as well.
- The records section is blank, so just remove it.
- A lot of stuff in the transactions section is stuff you already noted in the article in the appropriate sections, mainly the offseason. They should be noted throughout the prose with the section either being nonexistent or moved after the offseason stuff.
I know I'm throwing a lot at you here, so if you have any questions let me know. Once all these is looked through the article should at least be close to GA quality. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)