Talk:LeBron James/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 15:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article came up on the GAN list for review. It appears to have been reviewed a few months ago, so I read that review before looking at the article and analyzing it. In particular, I wanted to see how those issues had been addressed, but also I wanted to weigh the article as a whole and see how well it was written. Let me start by saying that the editors have done excellent work with this article. From here, I'll address the GAN criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The one section I have a concern with is the "Off the court" section. It's quite choppy and I'm not sure if it warrants separate sections for each paragraph, save for maybe the section on his public image. Other than that, I'm very impressed with the prose. It reads very smoothly and transitions well. It also looks like any major issues from the previous GAN have been resolved. I will agree with the previous reviewer that reviewing each season is a little long, but each section is kept fairly short and covers the important pieces. I think for now that it would not be considered undue weight to have this information, especially as he is still an active NBA player and the article maintains a decent balance between his career and other aspects.

   I have removed the headers in "Off the court". I left in the Salaries section but am not sure the best way to handle it.--Ktmartell (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Drive-by comment: I don't think it's a good idea to rename the whole section "Personal life". Major business deals and major television appearances should not be considered part of one's "personal life". I'd rather have lots of headers than force disparate topics together. Zagalejo^^^ 23:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Heads up, editors: checklinks has revealed a couple of dead links (see the bottom of the page). Check your references and see if you can find substitutions for these missing references. Tools such as web page archivers, i.e. Wayback Machine might be able to help you there. Otherwise, the article is extremely well referenced and links to reliable sources. I could not find one as I screened the list that did not appear to be reliable.

   The article is now free of dead and suspicious links. I am working on the links with connection and status issues, but I don't think those are high priority.--Ktmartell (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I feel as though the article is very broad, but not too broad. It is very well covered and hits all of the major aspects of the subject and his notability.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overall, the article reads very neutrally. I don't see any notable POV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images are just a little excessive, but I would say it's not too excessive to violate the criteria yet. I do feel, though, that the one of Liverpool's soccer field doesn't really make sense in the context of the article, though that is mainly because the section it goes with has the prose issue of being choppy, and a picture for that small of a section does feel like undue weight for that section of the article as it's worded now.

   I have removed the Liverpool picture. If you think there's another image that makes sense to remove, just let me know!--Ktmartell (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to place this article on hold for a week for the "Off the court" prose and the broken references. A personal suggestion: you may try resolving that last section by calling it "Personal life" and getting rid of all of the subheadings except for "Public image". I think we're close enough that I'm willing to give it a week and see if the last couple of issues can be resolved. If they are, I will pass this article.

   Carried out this suggestion. Thanks!--Ktmartell (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

With no real repairs or significant action taken at all in the last week, I'm going to go ahead and fail this article. The "Off the court" section, I feel, still does not read well at all and is really the Achilles heel of this article. Though the dead links aren't a major issue, they have gone unresolved as well. I don't think you're too far off from there, but for now, we're just not there yet. When you're ready for GA nomination again, let me know and I'll be glad to review the article again. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes have been made. Sorry for the wait. Re-nominating...--Ktmartell (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)