Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:31, 9 January 2012 [1].

Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game[edit]

Featured article candidates/Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game/archive1

Nominator(s): Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because it is already at GA status and I would like to see it be the Main Page's Featured Article this coming March 2, 2012. That date marks the 50th anniversary of Chamberlain's remarkable achievement. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)}

Citations are a major issue for this article, unfortunately:

The date formatting is a mess. My suggestion is to find one style such as January 6, 2012 and stick with it among all citations.
Citation 23, exactly what is the author here? There seems to be some formatting issues.
There are very few to no retrieval dates in the citations that do have links, that should be rectified.
Citation 1 and 12 is underformatted.
Why is a book cited in the references but not in the Further Reading like Cherry is?
I can see you tried your best, but these need a large overhaul period.

The lack of photos pardoning the one in the lead bothers me a slight, but not urgent.

Just thoughts to ponder. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zagalejo^^^

I would guess that part of the reason his accomplishment didn't make much news is that the NBA, in general, wasn't as popular in the early 1960s as it is today. Do any sources discuss that fact?
A general issue: who was using that German book as a source? Is that really the best available source? Is anyone even available to check the text against the source? Zagalejo^^^ 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more as I look through the article. Zagalejo^^^ 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a quick glance I see a bunch of issues.
I agree with Zagalejo about the German source, I highly doubt a three page mention in a book about a bunch of basketball stars (according to book) is the most reliable source on the game.
Citation number one, I don't see in the source where NBA calls the game one of the greatest ever, (it's originally from ESPN as well), and a claim like that needs more than a few sources.
Lead needs to be thickened per WP:LEAD, a bit about the background, the game itself and the aftermath should be mentioned.
Comprehensive issues. I see nothing about how the game was totally different from the 1960s until now, on why Chamberlain feat probably won't get accomplish again, potential rule changes because of the game (this game raised eyebrows within the NBA), how the game helped put professional basketball on the map (Chamberlain appeared in the Ed Sullivan show two days after the game), why the game was controversial, and changed sports journalism as no journalist was in the game being "meaningless" and so forth.

Some of these issues is listed on the Walt 1962 book, which isn't used.

I have many more concerns, especially with tone which I will comment tonight Secret ^account 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I couldn't make it much farther than the references and first few sections before seeing problems that cause a failure to meet FL criteria. Several significant ones have been picked up above; here are other examples that stuck out to me.

Reference 1 goes to ESPN.com, not NBA.com.
Ref 8 has a p. for a page range when it should be pp.
No page numbers are provided for content from ref 9
In ref 15, the newspaper that runs that website isn't given, which means that only giving the Associated Press as the publisher is misleading. I had to do some detective work before coming here to see if the source was reliable, which is not a great thing at this stage.
In general the references are underformatted and require significant work. I'm also concerned about whether the German source is the best that can be provided. There's nothing that says a foreign source can't be used, but if good sources are avaliable in English, they'd be preferable.
Some prose issues exist as well. For example, we have in the lead "The Warriors won the game 169–147, setting a then-record for the most combined points in a game by both teams with 316." It wasn't just the Warriors who set the record; the Knicks played their part too. That needs some re-writing.
MoS violations in the game report, where there are numerous scores given without the proper en dashes. "Warriors-Knicks" from Prologue could also use an en dash. While not a big deal on their own, the issues here symbolize a lack of sufficient preparation before the nomination.
Also, I see "Warrior-Knicks" later in Prologue. I'd imagine the first name should be plural.
The whole third paragraph seems a little out of place in an article about this particular game. I'd be much more interested in a few sentences on why a team based in Philadelphia was playing home games in Hershey in the first place. Maybe this whole paragraph would be a better fit with the added information.
"So their inexperienced backup pivot, Darrall Imhoff, was forced to play against scoring champion Chamberlain." I've seen a lot of examples of stellar writing in my time as an FAC reviewer. None of them involved sentences starting with "So".
First 42 minutes: "causing arena speaker Dave Zinkoff to fire up the previously sleepy crowd." Were the fans taking naps during the game or something? Also, "fire up" is not that formal.
I see "later stated that resistance was futile" in the middle of this section." That's really informal sportswriting-like commentary, and is laden with POV. How did that get past GAN?

Overall, this is a long way from FA standards, and I doubt that it can be fixed in time for this nomination to have a reasonable chance of success. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly because a book dedicated to this game should be referenced.

If Wilt, 1962: The Night of 100 Points and the Dawn of a New Era listed in Further Reading is an entire book on the subject of this game, it would be an oversight to not use it or a similar book as a source.
"meaningless late-season match": elaborate on why it was meaningless
"pivot": explain, wikilink, or just use "center"
"ordered his men to feed Chamberlain": use layman term for feed
"kept his cool despite getting perpetually triple and quadruple-teamed": was this not standard for Wilt?
"He scored another 28 points to lift": in the half or reative to when?
"possibly break a free throw shooting record": should mention here his typical free throw problems
"Warriors guard Guy Rodgers would end the game with 20 assists.": mention at end instead of middle, wikilink to assist
"However, according to all eyewitnesses, the game became a farce.": remove however
"He had no three-point field goals (the NBA did not start recording them until the 1979–80 season).": Is this needed?
Who held records before Chamberlain broke them? Also not sure is a table would be helpful for the record with total and previous and current holders
"Al Attles said that after Chamberlain's previous record 78-point game": move to Prologue.—Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.