Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jordan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zagalejo (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 15 March 2007 (→‎[[Michael Jordan]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michael Jordan

I'm nominating MJ for FA as I've done a lot of work on it, as did several members of WP:NBA, ShadowJester07, and PS2pcGAMER among others. It's well written, comprehensive and we've made a conscious effort to keep the size to a manageable length. It's also a GA which has been through a peer review which is now archived here. I would like to take this opportunity to thank flickr users mava, Joshua Massel, Esparta and shgmom56. It took a little work but I was able to convince them to allow us to use a couple of their pics for MJ and I can't thank them enough. So nomination and...

  • Support Quadzilla99 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC
  • Support with remarks As the main author of the Bill Russell article, the currently only basketball FA, I just read both articles side by side and don't see a remarkable quality dropoff. I think the article despite almost 70kb is also concise enough, as you could write probably 200kb+ about MJ without violating criteria 1b, 1c and even 4 (no, I am not kidding). IMHO also 1a is satisfied IMHO, and I would also like to point out that editing MJ is 1000x more difficult than Russell's because of the many, many vandals which hourly mess up the page. :/ I would support this for FA, but I could use more pics, for following fair use reasons:
  • a slam dunk -- early in his career, it was his signature move
  • a SI cover pic: after all, MJ appeared there 49 (!!) times
  • A pic of him as member of the Dream Team
  • A pic of him as a Washington Wizard
  • In addition, maybe ´not a pic, but at least a mention of his tongue-wagging? It *is* famous [1]

But all in all, I would definitely support MJ as a FA. In comparison with FAs like Gilberto Silva, A. E. J. Collins or Wayne Gretzky, and especially in comparison with inferior FAs like Moe Berg or Steve Dalkowski or Suzanne Lenglen, MJ belongs there, too. —Onomatopoeia 11:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Re: The SI cover... Fair use criteria for magazine covers states they can only be used in articles about the magazine, and not who is depicted on the cover. Caknuck 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - certainly no problem with images and lead or MOS, i haven't heard major problems about length except that it can, at parts now that that's been rectified many times, be written in less passive voice, so the only grouse i presume is point #1: "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable", to which i don't see problems either. the objections raised have consistently be addressed, albeit not all incorporated. as to whether i edited the article, certainly not the substance but mostly wikignomish tasks and some rephrasing. Chensiyuan 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - To SandyGeorgia: I know the WIAFA requirements. To express my support simply means I have read them and felt the article adhered to those requirements, and no further comment is needed. And no, I was not involved any editing of this article, save maybe a couple of small edits. Manderiko 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support igordebraga ≠ 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) For the record the editor to the left is User:Kingfisherswift, if you look at the page history. For some reason if I click on his name it comes up blank. Quadzilla99 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Actually my bad only the middle section of his weird icon comes up blank. Quadzilla99 19:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has numerous WP:WIAFA deficiencies; can we please get an indication if the four Supports above are from editors involved in the article, particularly since their "Support" votes contain no commentary whatsoever? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Nothing personal with anyone involved, but I'm not satisfied with the prose.
  • 1)Some paragraphs seem choppy (eg first paragraph of "Early career" - the 2nd and 3rd sentences don't flow).
You've actually changed those a little yourself, did you make this comment before or after doing so? Quadzilla99 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on the "Early years" section. I didn't get a chance to fiddle with the "Early career" section, though. Zagalejo 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2)There are a lot of "would go on to win"-style constructions (just change it to "won").
That's a personal preference I believe as both are correct grammatically. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most style guides recommend using fewer words whenever possible. Zagalejo 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3)Some phrases are just awkward ("The media, hoping to recreate a Magic-Bird type rivalry in a Jordan-Drexler/"Air" Jordan vs. Clyde "The Glide" rivalry").
Addressed I believe. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) There are a lot of sportswriting colloquialisms that might not be clear to non-hoops fans.
The general policy regarding terminology is that they should be wikified the first time they appear. Could you point to some specific instances. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Something like "perimeter player" might be confusing. Zagalejo 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, changed to guard more specific. Quadzilla99 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are just a few examples; the whole thing could use more copyediting. Let's not rush it to featured status; be patient and make the prose as nice as possible! As it stands, the article doesn't look like it was written by professionals, which is a FA requirement. Zagalejo 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response This article definitely wasn't rushed. I'm not sure what gave you that impression, it's been consistently worked on for several months in a row now. As a matter fo fact the amount of work that has gone into it is considerable. I definitely disagree about the prose and would be happy to address any individual concerns. Although I have to say I feel it's very well written overall. Quadzilla99 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here are some other points to consider. Really, I feel like I'm the Twilight Zone here. No one else notices this stuff?
  • For one thing, there is a lot of excess wordage. Let's look at this sentence: The lift came when Michael Jordan called up Bulls guard B.J. Armstrong in early 1995 to go out for breakfast, a meal that led to an impromptu shoot-around, and eventually to Jordan's return to the NBA for the Bulls. How about rewriting it as The lift came in early 1995 when Jordan invited Bulls guard B.J. Armstrong to breakfast. The meal led to an impromptu shoot-around and eventually prompted Jordan's return to the Bulls. I've chopped off about nine words. There are similar situations throughout the article.
I actually like that sentence. I'm pretty sure that one deals mostly with personal preferences. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some weirdly placed punctuation marks, such as in the following sentence: However this year, Jordan was bested by Karl Malone for the NBA MVP Award. Just read it out loud. Would you really say, "However this year (pause), Jordan was bested by Karl Malone for the NBA MVP Award?" I think this is more natural: However, this year Jordan was bested by Karl Malone for the NBA MVP Award. Or, to get rid of the passive voice: However, this year Karl Malone bested Jordan for the NBA MVP Award.
Done, grammatical error. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of punctuation marks, I also found this: Jordan's 5.2 assists per game, also prove his willingness to defer to his teammates. Why is there a comma between "game" and "also?"
Done fixed along with some other ones. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence is a good example of why we should use the passive voice with caution: It is often rumored that Jordan influenced the U.S. Olympic Committee to keep guard Isiah Thomas off the roster due to personal differences such as the aforementioned "freeze-out" in the 1985 All-Star game or the bitter rivalry that developed between the Pistons and Bulls in the late 80's to early 90's. Who is doing the rumoring? The passive voice removes agency.
That's really a question of sources actually. It is rumored by fans and sportwriters which is stated implicitly I believe, I mean you can probably verify the existence of rumors but to verify the actual sources is near impossible in some cases. The nature of rumors preclude them from having definite sources. Could you suggest an alternate wording? Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we probably won't pin down the source of the rumor, but are there any specific sportswriters who helped popularize it? It might be wise to dig through some newspaper archives from '92 to see what columnists were saying. I'll do some searching myself to see what I can find. I suppose I could live with the passive voice if our search proves fruitless, but let's not leave any stones unturned. Zagalejo 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found a 9-15-91 Chicago Tribune article by Sam Smith (the Bulls' longtime beat reporter) which quotes Jordan as saying, "I don`t play on any teams on which Isiah Thomas is a member." I'll see what else is out there. Zagalejo 02:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an exact source to the article? Quadzilla99 07:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the bibliographical info: Smith, Sam. "Isiah Not Olympian - For Now." Chicago Tribune. 15 September 1991. Sports, p. 13. I'm not sure if it's available for free online; I accessed the Chicago Tribune archives via my college library. Smith doesn't really give a source for that quote, so I'm not sure if Smith heard it from MJ himself, or if he just picked it up from someone else.Zagalejo 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Tribune is like the New York Times you have to subscribe to get it. I'm not really sure where to go with that. Without knowing the direct attribution of the source something like, "Sam Smith claimed Jordan said" doesn't sound right and would probably violate WP:BLP. Quadzilla99 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, there's this, which isn't even a sentence: Including their Hanes "Go Tagless" campaign in the early 2000's, and again in 2005 where he appeared in advertisements for Hanes alongside Kevin Bacon, in a campaign entitled "Look who we've got our Hanes on now."
Done, that whole sentence is probably unnecessary in a recounting of his life anyway even though it serves to add some life to the paragraph. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please don't take any of this personally. Just comb through the article a few times to see if you can polish it up further. Zagalejo 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems responding to suggestions, however I must say thus far most editors aren't seeing the glaring issues you are. I'm not really sure what the real problem is though. As you can see many candidates on the this page are commented on by editors who raise numerous issues which they feel need to be addressed. The issues are then commented on and addressed. If there are more objections that process continues until all their issues are addressed at which point they support. It's pretty common procedure. So I feel I've addressed these and await any others your response. Quadzilla99 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has the League of Copyeditors looked at the article? I'm frankly surprised that I'm the only person who noticed the "Hanes Go Tagless" sentence fragment; that suggests most people aren't reading the whole article, or aren't reading closely enough. Thanks for addressing the above issues, but I'm not going to give my support just yet. Give me some time to read it a few more times. Zagalejo 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it just means their command of English is not as good as yours or they may be too steeped in basketballspeak to see a problem, amongst other possibilities. but please don't suggest something like "aren't reading the whole article, or aren't reading closely enough" have a source for that? ha. Chensiyuan 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon though...a sentence fragment should be pretty obvious. That has nothing to do with "basketballspeak," and it seems like most of the commentators are fluent in English. Zagalejo 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i never said sentence fragment had anything to do with basketballspeak. in any event, any given article is bound to have errors to have slipped through the cracks. i suggested two possibilities as to why certain errors persisted, but my only request was the suggestion you made. anyway this is not worth quibbling over. Chensiyuan 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Okay I will work to address concerns but you should continue to try to give specific objections, your views will become disregarded and ignored other wise. The criteria states you must give specific, actionable objections. In particular referring to past mistakes which have since been corrected is definitively non-actionable and borders on ad hominem, just keep bringing forth issues no matter how many and I will be glad to deal with them. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bring up past mistakes. I just feel like too many people are complacent with the article – they need to be reminded to comb through it more carefully. It's very frustrating when someone tells me, "Well, no one else noticed these things before."
again we shouldn't presuppose people have not been duly diligent. it could well be a case of 'could not notice' rather than 'refuse to notice or did not notice'. between all the WP:NBA people thousands of edits have been made. don't get too frustrated man. Chensiyuan 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me look through the article at least a couple more times to see what else I can find. This is such a rich topic, and it deserves an exceptional article. Zagalejo 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more things to consider:
  • Controversy arose during the All-Star game when word surfaced that several veteran players led by Isiah Thomas were upset with the amount of attention Jordan was getting and led a so called "freeze-out" of Jordan, refusing to pass him the ball throughout the game. Despite this Jordan would go on to be voted Rookie of the Year. I'm not sure how the second sentence follows from the first. What does the All-Star game freeze-out have to do with the Rookie of the Year Award, which recognizes regular season play? "Despite this" doesn't work as a transition.
I wasn't particlularly happy with that myself, How about "Controversy arose during the All-Star game when word surfaced that several veteran players led by Isiah Thomas were upset with the amount of attention Jordan was getting and led a so called "freeze-out" of Jordan, refusing to pass him the ball throughout the game. The controversy left Jordan relatively unaffected when he returned to regular season play and he would go on to be voted Rookie of the Year?" Perhaps his rookie of year mention could be moved around to another section of the paragraph. Suggestions welcome. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted that version. Quadzilla99 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of "Mid-career: Pistons roadblock" basically express the same idea.
Done, second sentence deleted. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Scottie Pippen developing into an All-Star, the Bulls' play elevated to another level. Is "elevated" used correctly here? It just doesn't sound right to me; I'd prefer "The Bulls elevated their play to another level."
Done. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jordan hit six three pointers during the first half,[19] and in a memorable moment after the last three pointer, which he hit over the hands of Cliff Robinson, he jogged down the court shrugging as he looked courtside as if to say "I can't believe I'm doing this." I don't think it's strictly a run-on sentence, but it's still pretty long.
Done, I believe. I removed the reference to Clifford Robinson. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bulls would go on to win game one, and then wrap up the series in six games. "Wrap up" is too...chatty. Use more formal language. (There are similar cases throughout the article.)
Done fixed along with a couple of other instances. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the First Retirement section should more clearly explain Jordan's motivations for playing baseball. Didn't it have something to do with fulfulling his father's dream?
Done. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After sitting out much of the fourth quarter, Jordan re-entered the game in the final minutes, after the Philadelphia crowd serenaded him with sustained chants of "We want Mike!" Two "afters" in the same sentence; mix it up a little bit.
Fixed I'm not sure who did it though maybe I did and forgot oh well. Quadzilla99 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of Jordan's more popular commercials for the shoe involved Spike Lee playing the part of Mars Blackmon who attempted to find the source of Jordan's abilities and became convinced that "it's gotta be the shoes." Another long sentence that could use some work.
Done, I believe. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Allen Heckard thing is really trivial. Do we need to keep that part?
Done, not at all. Bah-by Allen. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like to see something done about all the "would go on" phrases and some of the passive constructions. They may be gramatically correct, but they're stylistically controversial, and they're going to really annoy a lot of English-teacher types. Zagalejo 08:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're well thought in general and add a little life to the article instead of saying the same things repeatedly in the same format. I have deleted some of them however. Quadzilla99 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm kind of new to this but I've read the criteria and feel it meets them. I personally like the prose except in a few sentences. I actually came across this FAC somewhat because of the prose. The beginning read last week "He is considered to be one of the" which was changed to "He is considered one of the" I felt that sounded unnatural and should include "to be". I actually asked about this on the WikiProject copyeditors league and they said both styles are acceptable which was my general impression. I was going to comment on the talk page when I noticed this so I cam and checked. Generally I like the "to be" inclusion and it's actually used in the Britannica article on him.[2] Aaron Bowen 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably marginally prefer the "to be" inclusion. Some editors prefer more succinct sentences although as you said both version are acceptable. Quadzilla99 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think less wordage is always better. If Google means anything, "He is considered one of the" is actually more common than "He is considered to be one of the." Zagalejo 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal preference. MSN Encarta also uses the "to be" form in their Jordan article. A google search is not a good reference point. I'm not going to argue over this but as some of the prose concerns have been of this manner, that is debating between two acceptable alternatives, I thought I'd point it out. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So can I put the "to be" back in there? The current version sounds awkward to me. Aaron Bowen 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I trust that with so many people involved in the process the article is bound to be comprehensive (or some suitable approximation of that). However, I believe a bit of copyediting would tighten the prose. Since this is a high-traffic page, it's important to hold back FA status until we're completely satisfied with the result and I believe people from the League of Copyeditors will be happy to go through an article which is already in great shape. Pascal.Tesson 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I actually added it to there proofreading list almost a month and a half ago and it would probably take another month or two for them to get to it. Again though just saying the prose is bad is an unactionable. You have to give specific objections. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you can wikilawyer your way around "unactionable objections" but I'm telling you that the prose does not read as brilliant or even compelling. Please look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for hints and tips about tightening the prose and improving the flow. You can also contact more directly people from the League of copyeditors, they're usually happy to help an already high quality article reach FA status. Want a few random examples? "However, despite Jordan's injury", spot the redundancy, "one of the statistically greatest seasons", akward, "But, notwithstanding his numbers, Jordan lost out on the league MVP award to Magic Johnson", merge with previous sentence to improve flow, and so on. The people of the league are much more competent than I will ever be at identifying and fixing these problems. Pascal.Tesson 17:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
adjectives exist for a reason, and i don't see why that sentence is hyperbolic. he was a fan favourite, he was exciting (what's a more moderate description?), he could pretty much "fly" with his leap, and nothing too excessive with "daring" either in a drive to the basket. Chensiyuan 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not factual or NPOV, nor is it a sourced comment to any pundit. How can "high flying" be considered moderate? Who is making these judgmenets? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why does a pundit saying it make it any better, or having ten? they will merely be expressing another POV. moreover, high flying is simply a literal description of the physical feat. Chensiyuan 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do source it to a pundit, then use quotation marks to explain that it is someone's opinion. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sourced, however as to the quotation marks, I don't really feel that's necessary. The information is sourced but the fact that you want "high-flying" to be sourced when the individual dunked from the free throw line and is commonly known as such, is non-actionable in my opinion. That's like saying you don't want Bill Gates (whose net worth is $82 billion) to be described as extremely wealthy in an article without direct quotes. In addition, Jordan's drives to the basket and acrobatic moves are a tremendously important part of his appeal. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did he? I didn't know that - not everyone reading an article about Michael Jordan will necessarily know a lot about basketball. CloudNine 10:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we say how much Gates is worth. It would be better if you likewise quantified his leap - how far..how high..etc, rather than just empty words like "high flying". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response There isn't a real solid source as his actual vertical jump that's why his dunking from the free throw line is mentioned. Quadzilla99 09:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsourced hagiography - "Jordan's high flying acrobatic endeavors, vividly illustrated in his back-to-back slam dunk contest championships in 1987 and 1988, influenced a generation of young players. In addition, commentators have dubbed a number of next-generation players "the next Michael Jordan" upon their entry to the NBA, such as Grant Hill, Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade.". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Completely sourced and slightly re-worded. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty pedantic discussion. Trying to pick apart the term "high flying" and calling it POV is being a stickler. I'm not a sports fan, but I certainly know that Jordan is one of the top basketball players ever and I think this is a very good (and reasonably colorful) description of his style of play, unsourced or not. I know for a fact that prose this flowery is tolerated in articles about the humanities, and I don't see why a sports article has to be... well... dull. Peter Isotalo 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff - "Jordan was an immediate success and a media sensation as a rookie as he averaged 28.2 points per game (ppg.) on 51.5% shooting (field goal percentage) in his first season" - the source only gives the stats, so if you must use an adjective, please use them conservatively, rather than phrases like "immediate success and a media sensation". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "immediate success and a media sensation" should be trivially easy to source; Jordan appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated his rookie year with the headline "A Star is Born." [3] Zagalejo 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, just say what awards he got and major SI and news features etc that he got, rather than peacock terms which obfuscate what really happened. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response An encyclopedia is supposed to use appropriate descriptive terms to describe events. If an encyclopedia described Einstein as a genius and commented repeatedly about his extraordinary intelligence that would be considered weasel words by your definitions. The Britannica and MSN Encarta article describe Jordan in a similar fashion. I have inserted sources for all of the so-called weasel words and changed the wording somewhat. Again though if we called Cy Young and Babe Ruth dominant those would not be weasel words. If somone or something is truly great or standout in their field, it's almost POV to describe them otherwise. Just using statistics or awards fails to give perspective to the non-basketball fans who does not know what those entail. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Encarta article is rubbish. You can say stuff like "he was by far the leading performer, totally 600 points that year, 200 more than the next best"....just saying that he was an "immediate success" is useless. You are supposed to say things like "he was the first rookie to achieve such and such a feat"....not, useless hyperbole. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Encarta is rubbish, all the editors on this article have been rubbish, and you are? Manderiko 05:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well basically all of it is sourced by verifiable sources. I think I've made my views pretty clear on the subject, almost every single large scale publication including Britannica, Encarta, and the NBA's offical website among many others, does so in similar terms.[4][5][6] If your claim is that the generally accepted views on him used in all those sources in incorrect then that's a different claim. Besides we're getting more than a little absurd here when we refuse to call Michal Jordan a success and a media sensation in my opinion. Quadzilla99 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hyperbole i believe means something along the lines of extravagant exaggeration. if prose should be compelling, some adjectival flexbility must be allowed and "immediate success" does not connote hyperbole. and, the reason why MJ was considered a success is not necessarily measured simply against how much more he outscored the rookie next in line that year, or whether he was the first to achieve such a feat (see Quad's comments thus far). a simpler way to look at it is whether MJ's rookie performance is up there amongst the best in NBA history, but again, it has the potential to beg hair-splitting questions like oh, why is ppg more important than efficiency ranking and a premium be given to it, oh why is his spg not as high as rookie xxxx in year xxxx... Chensiyuan 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on commenting whether the article is an outright hagiography or not, but the wording about Jordan's popularity and success don't seem in the least exaggerated. Demanding that it be sourced is sorta like demanding a citation for a statement like "the Second World War was a disastrous failure for the Nazi regime". Thsi is pretty darned common knowledge as far as I'm concerned. Peter Isotalo 09:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Object In addition to the prose and hagiography referenced above, the references are not correctly formatted in a consistent bibliographic style. As one example (there are many), nytimes.com, A Humbled Jordan Learns New Truths Jordan's father, accessed January 16, 2007 should include author, publication date, and be in a correct cite news format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If you're referring to templates, WP:CITET states that citation templates are not required by any Wikipedia guidelines. In some cases the NY Times articles have no particular authors, if there is a particular order you would like those sources re-worked into please point out the particular references which are out of order. Quadzilla99 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say you had to use cite templates, but I did point you towards them to illustrate how to correctly cite a news source. And, the example I gave obviously does have an author and a publication date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further objections; please read WP:DASH and correct throughout, and informal prose in addition to other prose problems mentioned ("The brand has also sponsored college sports programs such as those of North Carolina, Cincinnati, Cal, St. John's, Georgetown, and North Carolina A & T.") Cal would be University of California Berkeley, maybe? Attention to Wikilinking is needed. Also, a quick glance finds hagiographic statements not supported by the reference given ("Jordan was an immediate success and a media sensation as a rookie")—where does "immediate success" come from? This is an example of an article which should not be promoted in its current state, highlighting the problems with support votes from what appear to be Project members who have added no constructive criticism of how to improve the article to FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
highlighting the problems with support votes from what appear to be Project members who have added no constructive criticism of how to improve the article to FA standards. I speak only for myself, but you have, compared to what everyone else has done? I am not even going to comment on this. Chensiyuan 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed below. Quadzilla99 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further objections: unreliable sources. A personal, tripod website is not a reliable source. This is one example; please review all sources. tripod.com, Michael Jordan Wheaties boxes, February 23, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done source and sentence removed. Quadzilla99 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain WP:Civil and refrain from personal attacks. Ridiculing other editors because they disagree with you, or attempting to discount their votes and/or knowledge is pretty extreme. Thanks. Quadzilla99 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no personal attacks, no lack of civility; please don't be silly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see Chen is working on this as we speak, let's see the results and then comment. As to the prose and supposed weasel words that's undergoing work as we speak. More specific examples would always be helpful and apreciated by the way. Quadzilla99 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i've tried my best in filling in the authors of articles. i hope i've not missed any, given my laptop's lcd screen is less than 10 inches and i have to squint to peruse the footnotes. regarding format of footnotes, well i don't see a real problem at the moment. Chensiyuan 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the news sources still have no publication dates; if the NBA Project members aren't familiar with citing sources correctly, a review of WP:CITE or WP:CITET might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above and mentioning WP:CITET expresses a personal preference not any policy. Not really sure where the hostility is coming from will try to address concerns, thanks. Quadzilla99 16:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? Strange, I actually hate using the cite templates, and never do in my own writing. They do, however, provide a convenient summary for editors not familiar with bibliographic or citations styles, which can also be found in the links at the bottom of WP:CITE. Ignoring CITE or CITET, and employing common sense, our readers simply need to have enough information to be able to locate an article, which in the case of a news source, always includes the publication date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes in good shape now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'm not sure that's an actionable objection as it is not an actual criteria of WP:WIAFA. I am not really sure how to react to that. Quadzilla99 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Okay, naysayers, lets bring it on. What of WP:WIAFA does MJ fail? My POV:
  • 1a FACT: MJ IS legendary. He is the ESPN athlete #1 of the 20th century. He is the only guy who can legimately say he is greater than Babe Ruth and Ali! This makes "great prose" a catch-22. If we DO write in praising sentences, we are accused of flattering him and using weasel words. If we do NOT, we are in utter denial of his genuine greatness. If we say MJ is not spectacular, jaw-dropping or a superstar -- even after using multiple bullet-proof references, you are making it IMPOSSIBLE for us WP:NBA guys to describe him correctly. If we say MJ is "a remarkable athlete", then I presume Maria Callas is just "a Greek opera singer", Gandhi just "an American politician" or Einstein "a German scientist". Well, for me, this is like discussing that the phrase "Cauliflower is nutritious" is POV. I am going as far to say if you do NOT write these things (superstar, spectacular, sensation, legend), you are endangering WIAFA:1b.
  • 1b - no issues here. All-time GOAT of the NBA, media hyperstar.
  • 1c - I am a WP:CITE and WP:CITET fanatic, and I really do not see what part this fails. BTW, WP:CITET is NOT mandatory!
  • 1d - no issues. Otherwise, it would not even be a GA.
  • 1e - no great changes. Stability only refers to content, not to vandalism.
  • 2a - no issues here.
  • 2b - no issues here.
  • 2c - no issues here.
  • 3 - the ONLY legit thing IMHO where I am neutral, see above. I want to see MJ in a Wizards and a Dream Team jersey.
  • 4 - 65 kb is NOT too long for the greatest athlete of the 20th century according to ESPN. Bill Russell is the same, and is a FA, just as Wayne Gretzky, his NHL counterpart.

Just for the record, I am NOT a deluded NBA fanboy. I have written numerous GAs (also in totally different areas than sports) and a FA, and I know now WP:CITE and WP:CITET look like. I am just deeply disturbed that the main counterargument seems to be an alledged POV while no constructive solution is brought forward, just nitpicking about "weasel words" and ridiculing our WikiProject. —Onomatopoeia 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse GA standards with FA standards; they are worlds apart and GA is a random, unofficial process. The fact that an article is GA has no bearing whatsoever on its preparedness for FAC. No one has said CITET is mandatory or even necessary; on the other hand, sources do need to be cited correctly with full bibliographic information, sources should be reliable, and statements cited to a source should be supported by that source. Examples of deficiencies in all of these areas have been shown, as well as WP:MOS deficiencies, problems with the prose, and problems with Wikilinking. I do agree with you that the article is not too long, as its *readable* prose is within limits. Fixing these things should take less time than arguing over them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not accomplishing anything by attacking the people who are trying to provide guidance on the article. Even if they aren't in WIAFA, most of the suggestion made, such as consistent footnotes, would greatly improve the article. Please don't simply do the bare minimum for an FA and then complain about it when people make suggestions. —Cuiviénen 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But I still don't see the killer reason for non-promotion, but this is why this page exists for. —Onomatopoeia 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as for the the WP:NBA Zagales is a member by the way and has remained a strong oppose while Aaron Bowen, Kingfisherswift, and Igordebraga are not members and support so the idea doesn't hold much water. Let's just forget that for now and concentrate on the problems. Anyway as to the accuations of weasel words, here's quotes from the 2 sources I used to designate Jordan as an immediate success in his rookie season from the NY Times (In case you're not a subscriber), from the 1984 pre-season: "What Jordan has produced so far has been extraordinary and has drawn a chorus of praise from opponents and teammates. In his first six exhibition games, averaging 29.6 minutes of play, Jordan led to Bulls to a 5-1 record with 22.3 points and 5.4 rebounds per game and a total of 14 assists, 9 steals and 6 blocked shots."[7] and less than one month into the 1984 season:"The Knicks lost their sixth consecutive game, but overshadowing that was the first regular-season New York appearance of Michael Jordan, the phenomenal rookie of the Bulls.
Jordan left the crowd aghast. He scored from over, under and around the basket, as well as from the outside. The 6-foot-6-inch guard did it with dunks and nifty drives.
By the time he snatched the ball from a helpless Ernie Grunfeld and dashed for a flying one-handed dunk that gave the Bulls a 23-point lead at the end of the third period, the crowd was standing, voicing approval for nearly a minute. Jordan, who played 33 minutes, finished with 33 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals and 2 blocked shots.
That display left even the resident crowd-pleaser, Bernard King - who had a game-high 34 points - wondering how effective the former North Carolina player will be once he has gained experience.
"I'll hate to see that," King said. "Maybe he'll be in the Western Conference by then."[8]
I've added the dates to refs in all cases I believe and will continue to work on other concerns. Quadzilla99 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Someone will probably correct me, but I can't remember a FAC being semi-protected before. Why is it protected, and how long is the protection going to last? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look through the article's history it gets vandalized hourly when it's not protected. I believe the admin who semi-protected it last commented in his edit summary, that it might be indefinitely. Quadzilla99 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should feel free to remove the semi protection if they feel that it is necessary. It has been tried in the past and has always ended up reprotected after a week or so. The article basically has been protected off and on (mostly on) since summer 2006 with 11 different admins going back and forth. The IP vandalism tends to just happen once or twice per IP and then it is done by someone else a few hours later, so blocking is useless. I am more than happy to remove the semi-protection if people are willing to keep a closer eye on the article and revert the excessive amount of vandalism. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Quadzilla99 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An enormous portion of the article is referenced to databasebasketball.com, but I can find nothing on that site to indicate it is a reliable source. If the editors have such info, that would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Database-basketball is generally reliable. Sports Illustrated, at one point, praised it for "Britannica-like accuracy" (or something like that - I can find the article on Factiva if you really require me to do so). I have used the site frequently enough to notice a few minor errors (death dates not updated; players' names spelled incorrectly), but it's pretty much as good as anything you're going to find. Even the official NBA registers contain a few scattered errors. Zagalejo 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info; struck that objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember reading the SI story and I've found it online but I don't subscribe to SI so I can't verify it.[10] If anyone, such as an administrator gets SI they can verify it. Basically it was a blurb but like Zagalejo said the writer commented that it was one of several web sites that has "Britannica like accuracy" if I recall correctly. It's football branch databasefootball.com is also an optional parameter of the football template:[11] It's part of Database Sports which is used extensively throughout Wikipedia. Quadzilla99 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site is also referenced to by popular ESPN.com and ESPN the Magazine columnist Bill Simmons, although he doesn't mention anything about the credibility of it just that he really likes the site's Hall of Fame monitoring system. He actually uses it as a key part of one of his arguments (To see his comments quick it's in the fifth paragraph, the one starting "Here's his résumé...").[12]Quadzilla99 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't realize that you have to have ESPN Insider to read that article. Here's the excerpt for posterity's sake anyway, even though it's not really an issue anymore (Simmons is speaking of Joe Dumars):
"Here's his résumé: six All-Star Games, one Finals MVP, one second-team All-NBA selection, four first-team All-Defense selections. He was never a franchise player, much less a defining one. In fact, in certain pivotal playoff games (Game 5 of the 1990 Finals, for instance), Dumars sat in crunch time. Most damning of all is databasebasketball.com's Hall of Fame monitor. The statistical engine assigns each player a score, with anything over 135 denoting Hall of Fame worthiness. Kareem scores the highest, with 833. Jordan scores 731; Barkley, 315; Wilkins, 142. Dumars? He gets a 105, trailing 33 retired players who haven't made the cut.
Again, I like Joe D. But Paul Westphal made three All-NBA first teams and five All-Star teams. He scores 143 on the HOF monitor. Dantley averaged 30-plus for four straight seasons. Artis Gilmore was the best center in ABA history. JoJo White won two rings, made seven straight All-Star teams and won a Finals MVP. Bernard King was the most explosive scoring forward of his era and still found time to star in Fast Break. None of those guys is in the Hall. Joe D wasn't better than any of them." Quadzilla99 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source discussing the site:[13] Quadzilla99 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There are some problems that I think should be addressed, though I can't say that trying to present Jordan as more popular, successful or skilled than he was (or is perceived to have been) appears to one of them.:
    • I don't really like articles that are over 50k in general, and if they are to be excused they're going to have to be about really major main topic articles, like World War II, feminism, Middle Ages or, in fact, basketball (which, incidentally. is a mere 42k). I don't see that biographies should be exempt, world-renowned athletes or not. The article would benefit from more summary style and fewer details. Some concrete pointers:
You're the first editor to complain about the length perhaps other editors will but it's around 40 kb readable prose which should be acceptable. Besides there is a lot of information that is left out already. We have a made a conscious decision to keep the size down (see the talk page and the edit history). Here's some exclusions as an example: he negotiated a unique "love of the game" clause in his rookie contract that allowed him to play basketball whenever he wanted to (most contracts don't allow players to play pickup games for fear of injury), he had a fierce basketball rivalry with this brother growing up (who he looked up to immensely), he dreamed of being a baseball player growing up, he cried incontrollably when he won the championship in 1996 because it fell on father's day which had special significance because of his deceased father, he gambled on golf games with Hall of Fame American football player Lawrence Taylor who once purportedly owed him $150,000, etc. etc. I could probably cite 50 more, this article hasn't been an indiscriminate collection of information, there has been an attempt to keep the size down. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There doesn't seem to be a single paragraph without statistics, and usually quite a lot of them. Does the general readership really need to read about all of them?
Well it's very hard to write an objective sports article without relying heavily on statistics in fact another editor who also opposed (Blnguyen) complained that it should rely more on statistics and less on summary. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sections on legacy, personal life and business ventures seem a bit on the trivial side. It would seem that the latter two could even be merged and shortened a bit. "After retiring as a player" also seems like it could be included in a more general non sports-related section.
I disagree. I think they are all solid and necessary. His legacy is important and he was the most successful endorser in history so that merits at least a section. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll back up Quadzilla on this one. The endoresments and business ventures, in particular, are hugely important. People killed over his sneakers! Zagalejo 19:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, like pointed out above, there is more general wordiness that should be looked over.
I've asked the League of copyeditors for help. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a density of citations that is simply uncalled for. I have no trouble in finding pairs or even groups of sentences that use the same source over and over just for the hell of it. Repeating the same citations after two consecutive sentences that obviously belong together serves no meaningful purpose. And please don't respond "but references are a requirement!", because I'm not saying you have to get rid of all of them. I'm just saying it's excessive to the point of pedantry in many places. A lot of them serve only as padding. And, frankly, I don't think the descriptions of Michael Jordan's success need any citations at all; they're that self-evident just from reading the article. Anyone questioning them should produce a source claiming the opposite.
The citation thickness is not unusual for an FA I'm not going to find and pick out examples but look for yourself. I agree about the success part, but they have to stay in for now since people required citations for the fact that he was an "immediate success" and a "media sensation" as a rookie. I thought they were obvious too but included them. Also most sports related editors and a lot of editors in general, require sources for each statistic cited in an article when they review them, as a lot of sports fans are really into statistics. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead could benefit from being a bit tighter and having a shade less wikilinkage. I mean "his Airness"? It doesn't really seem relevant to the article... And I'm still of the opinion that a lead should not require footnotes except when presenting extremely controversial facts.
I removed the sources and the highness link. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the pun behind "His Airness" would make immediate sense to everyone, which is why I included the link to Highness. Of course, we could probably remove the nicknames from the lead all together. Zagalejo 19:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are some other things we can do to tighten the lead? Zagalejo 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although I don't think we'll be able to meet all of your concerns (particularly regarding length), I would thank for you being civil and giving your input even though you didn't like the status of the article. I've tried to meet some of your concerns. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to gain much addiontal support, or civility, by engaging in all that rather obvious cherry-picking of objections. It's also rather inappropriate to comment about one being the only one with a certain objection, since it addresses only the objector rather than the arguments provided. And in this case it's not even true (see PS2's comment below).
  • One can argue each other to death about specific information. What's relevant is some kind of general perspective. Ask yourself what would be relevant to someone who knows almost nothing about Jordan and try to weigh that against reasonable article length. There are a million facts that can be said about just about any topic, but saying you've only picked 500 of those isn't a valid argument.
  • Let's be frank here: statistics are for (sports) nerds. I know I'm one, but I try not to push too much detail when writing articles I like. A reasonable amount of detail is good, but too much is just tedious. Summaries should for the most part take precedence over number crunching. Again, the article is intended for a wide audience, not just sports fans.
  • There is plenty of controversy about the excesses of citations. The arguments brought forth concerning the "high flying"-sentence are patently ridiculous and should in my opinion be studiously, if politely, ignored. As for sports fans and footnote counters claiming the article has to have a footnote after every single statistic, this is as absurd as attestation of the playing style summary and rookie popularity and some editors need to lighten up a tad. Sports stats are not difficult to find online, especially not for athletes like Jordan. We don't need to hold people's hands and guide them to the right page, sub-page, paragraph, row and column for the article to qualify as verifiable. I'm not of the opinion that people should have the right to question random facts just because it doesn't have a footnote next to it.
I'm going to read the article thoroughly over the next few days and try to make a few edits to at least hint on how to condense some of the information. Peter Isotalo 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS2PcGamer commented that he was fine with the size of the prose. Before making drastic changes to the article you need to gain consensus. Myself, Onamatopeaia, Sandy, and PS2PcGamer have all commented directly that are satisfied with the length of the prose. The fact that no one else has complained is an important point, as if you need get to get consensus if you're going to make drastic changes to any established article. You would need to cut 20 kb's out of the prose to get under 50kb. Quadzilla99 13:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Actually PS2PcGamer said he didn't "think it was in that bad of shape as far as the size of the prose is concerned." Quadzilla99 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, PS2 also said "I do agree that the prose could use some trimming." As for suggested reductions of content, you can revert however much you'd like of it, but I'd recommend at least waiting to see my suggestions before wagging the finger of consensus at me. The article is out of Project Sports-land now, and what is deemed appropriate by aficionados may not hold true for the rest of us; fans don't automatically have the last say about their favorite topics. Do also keep in mind that most of the changes that you're characterizing as subjective are the ones you should offer compromises to, not staunch refusal. And don't take figures too literally. 50 k is a rough estimate, not an absolute demand.
Now please be patient and try to hold off on further comments until I've presented concrete suggestions. Peter Isotalo 13:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merely pointed out that several people have directly stated they are okay with the current length of the prose (41 kb), you're free to make suggestions. I think it's a non-issue obviously though. Also as to the citation density see other FA's Intelligent design, Immune System, Influenza, also articles that are likely to be disputed such as this one commonly include more sources. The citation density is not abnormally large given the amount of disputed statements it's adequate. Quadzilla99 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Killing "where appropriate". The current citation "standards" are not uncontroversial. And whom are you kidding? Comparing intelligent design with this article is like comparing Opus Dei with scouting. Michael Jordan is not a controversial topic.
And I need to be frank about something; this nomination would probably fare better if you took a few days off from it. You're supposed to convince people through eloquent reasoning, not push the article through the system by sheer conviction and a supermajority of votes.
Peter Isotalo 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be frank in reponse, that's not going to happen. Basically if you'll notice you raised issues that were not raised by any other editor before you. You were the first to raise objections to: 1) length, 2) citation density, 3) overuse of statistics, and 4) wikilinking in the lead. I'll be more than happy to work on the article in an appropriate manner if other people agree with your concerns. However if you're the only one that feels that way don't expect the article to change radically due to your personal preferences. Let's just see what other editors think. If they agree those 4 areas are of concern or they like your proposals then we'll change them. Quadzilla99 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the rest of the Committee to Monitor and Approve Edits to Michael Jordan's Wikipedia Article this obsessed with discouraging outside views or have they just done a bad job of choosing their official representative for this FAC?
Peter Isotalo 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how this goes because I don't want to have to come here to comment here all the time, but I feel the length is fine and would not be in favor of combining several sections or drastically cutting the size. I say this as I already voted and want to make clear that I considered length when I voted. Basically I considered everything that was a criteria, so I'm in favor of the current version. Also the citations are fine the way they are maybe some could be moved to the end of the sentence though but that's minor. The article is not "too stat heavy" also. Basically the two main concerns I see from objectors are prose and hagiography (a word I learned today), those are the ones that should be concentrated on. I assume everyone else considered length, citation density, and the amount of stats too and no one else (so far) seems to have a problem with those issues. Here's one or two suggestions:
"Jordan is a member of the Omega Psi Phi fraternity,[1] and has the letter omega (Ω) branded on his chest.[1]" Who cares? This was almost definitely put in by a frat member who wanted to make sure everybody knew Jordan was in their Fraternity.
Maybe reference three players who were on the Dream Team to avoid a run-on sentence. Magic, Larry, and Karl Malone would do. No need to mention eight out of the twelve players(!). Say "Magic, Larry, and Malone among others" (use their full names though).
Maybe mention how his game changed over the years in the player profile section (he was more of a high flyer when he was young and more of a jump shooter when he got older). Those things are minor and I still support the current version though. It has so many nice pics (which are hard to get and use here I understand), tons of information, and maybe my grammar isn't the best but the prose seems solid to me. I have to admit it does seem a lot better in the prose department from a couple days ago so apparently there was some room for improvement. Aaron Bowen 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I addressed two of your concerns (I used D-Rob instead of Malone though). I'll need to get sources if I'm going to re-do the player profile section, so maybe tomorrow. Quadzilla99 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An excellent, well-sourced article, but replete with apparent editorialising in sensational tone. If it needs to be in the article, this is, to my mind, best done using quotes from sources. If he did something stupendous, someone will have said so, "Wikipedia" needn't. --Dweller 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to specific examples? Everything has been sourced to my knowledge. I mean if it's true for instance that he was an immediate success and a media sensation as a rookie, and can be proven with sources, do you not want us to say it because it will sound biased even if it is the truth? Also it would be easy to cherry pick sources to say whatever you think about things, and I don't think a Wikipedia bio should be a collections of quotes about a person. Generally we're allowed to summarize and are expected to. If everytime he does things we can't put them into perspective without using a quote the article will become fanboyish, "Example: about that the move Magic Johnson was quoted as saying, "it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen!" The question should be, in my opinion, is the statement true? A lot of editors have pointed out such as Isotalo and Zagalejo, that the stuff some people feel looks biased, like the fact that he was a sensation as a rookie, is common knowledge. Everything is backed up by sources and if it's not you could point it out. The ironic thing is it's tame compared to Britannica, Encarta, and most other versions as was pointed out above. As a matter of fact it says right in the opening sentence that he was the greatest basketball player of all time in Britannica and then goes on to say, "Jordan, a guard, was an exceptionally talented shooter and passer and a tenacious defender. He earned the nickname “Air Jordan” because of his extraordinary leaping ability and acrobatic maneuvers."[14] Almost every retelling of his life is done a similar manner. I mean the stuff is such common knowledge that you can't find any recounting of his life (other than an angry blog) that isn't written in similar terms. In my opinion it's POV in the opposite direction if you refuse to say he was a spectacular leaper and a tremendous success as a basketball player. Quadzilla99 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as the length is concerned, if you do a copy and paste of only the actual content of the article (basically excluding the infobox, references, the templates at the bottom, wikilinks, etc which all add up), the total size comes out to ~41KB. The article definitely could use some trimming here and there, but I don't think it is in that bad of a shape as far as the length is concerned. As a reference, the Basketball article is in the same ballpark as far as size is concerned (36KB if you copy and paste just the content). Considering the basketball article hasn't been edited as comprehensively for detail and style as the Jordan article, the Jordan article seems to be about the right size. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're to exclude all those infoboxes, tables, templates and wiklinkage (this, if anything, is a good indication of excess), then I'm very tempted to ask what all that non-content content is doing there in the first place. This might just as well be a good argument to cut back a tad on both prose and templates. Peter Isotalo 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll vote once I have completed reading the article, but in the meantime here are some issues I noted:
    1. Inconsistency in wikilinking of years: Some individual years are wikilinked (e.g. 1995, 2001 2003in the intro), others are not (e.g 1988, 1991 in the intro.); yet others are linked to the corresponding NBA Finals (I assume these are years in which Jordan led the Bulls to the finals).
    2. Inconsistent tense usage: From the "Early career" section, I quote, "The controversy left ..." followed by "The Bulls would finish". Again, "Jordan would come back ..." followed by "Jordan became ...". Such examples abound.
    3. Some phrasing is convoluted (although I realize this is a matter of taste), for e.g., "The controversy left Jordan relatively unaffected ...". Why not, "Jordan was relatively unaffected by the controversy ..."
    4. Typo and punctuation: From the "Mid-career section", "In 1988-89 Jordan averaged 32.5 ppg. on 53.8% from the field, the Bulls finished 47-35, and advanced to the ...". Should it be, "In 1988-89 Jordan averaged 32.5 ppg. on 53.8% shooting from the field; the Bulls finished 47-35 and advanced to the ..." or even split into 2 sentences ?
    5. Grammar: From "First three-peat", "set a franchise record in for regular season wins"
    6. More punctuation: Again from "First three-peat", "where their nemesis the Detroit Pistons awaited them." has commas missing before and after "the Detroit Pistons".
    7. Also in article lede, should professional be wikilinked, since it is not always obvious to non-Americans what it means, specifically in sports ?
    8. The abbreviation MVP should be indicated when the phrase "Most Valuable Player" is first used in article.
    9. Possible fancruft: "However the Bulls had learned to play as a team and with better teammates surrounding him Jordan proved more willing to pass the ball. Jordan made his teammates better throughout the series and when the Pistons employed their "Jordan Rules" defense of doubling and triple teaming him Jordan picked them apart with pinpoint passing." Note: I am not saying that these statements are false, but the language seems more suited to a coffee-table book rather than an encyclopedia. (additionally there is missing comma after "surrounding him")
    10. Basketball speak ? "Jordan changed hands midair" Really ?! Don't you mean that he moved the ball from one hand to the other while in midair. :-)
    11. Redundancy: Spot the redundant word in, "establishing another new franchise high with a 67-15 record." Hint: Could they have established "another old franchise high" ?
    12. The abreviations ppg, rpg and apg should be deinded when the expanded terms are used for the first time. Right now two of the three are defined only midway through the "First three-peat". Also the NBA site seems to use the abbreviations without a period in the end (i.e ppg rather than ppg. or PPG as used in the article ) [15].
    13. Suggestion: "In what would become an enduring video clip," is somewhat generic praise. I think pointing out that the play won the "2000 ESPY Play of the Decade" carries more weight.
    14. Ambiguity: "Jordan scored a record 35 points in the first half" What record ? Best for any game, best for post-season games, best NBA Finals game ? If the record is to be mentioned, the sentence should be reworded to make it clear.
    15. Needless justification ?: "Because of his dominating performance, Jordan was named Finals MVP for the second year in a row." Do we really need to specify "Because of his dominating performance" especially after the preceding sentences in the article ?
    16. Original research? : "Jordan's perceived slighting in the MVP balloting only fueled his competitive fire." sounds like unattributed OR to me. I don't doubt that it is true, but since the statement is an opinion rather than a fact, it should rephrased something along the lines, "Bull's coach Phil Jackson felt that the slight ..." and referenced. Even otherwise it can be rephrased as "The perceived slight in the MVP balloting seemed to fuel Jordan's competitive fire", to avoid the awkward phrasing, although the question remains: Who perceived the slight and who thought that it fueled Jordan?
    17. Missing word: "win three straight Finals MVPs", should be "win three straight Finals MVP awards".
    18. Redundancy: "ever is redundant in "most spectacular seven-year run by an athlete ever"
    19. Missing/misplaced information: Jordan's olympic Gold is not mentioned in the right place in his career chronology, but is only obliquely referred to by, "that the added exhaustion of the Dream Team". A reader who does not already know about the 1992 Dream Team will be left scratching their head at the sudden reference.
    20. Are the details about the names of James Jordan's killers and how they were caught relevant to this article ? Ditto for the (ungrammatical), "it was from him that he picked up his trademark habit of wagging his tongue out of his mouth as he drove to the basket, a habit Jordan developed after his watching his father do the same while working on mechanical devices." I know that these are editorial decisions and well-meaning editors may hold differing opinions.

I think the article could be improved by some light professional copyediting; I'll add more comments as I read the article. Abecedare 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)PS: I would prefer if you replied to my comments below rather than within (i.e. interleaved with) the above list. You can refer to each comment by the corresponding number for easy reference. Thanks. Abecedare 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I'll fix that. Quadzilla99 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Done. Quadzilla99 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support I am happy to support this article for FA status since the article's prose and style adherence to WP:MOS (which were my main concerns earlier) have been addressed in the past couple of days. Comment: I think the article has greatly improved since it was first nominated as a FAC, thanks to the reviewers comments and the editors diligent response. In the future, though, it may be be less stressful for all involved if articles are peer reviewed and "professionally" copyedited before candidacy. Cheers. Diclosure: I copyedited the article a bit a few hours back, but have not otherwise been involved with the basketball project or this article. Abecedare 09:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
    1. What would you suggest just unlinking them all? I really don't care if they're linked. Generally I think from working on other articles that some sports editors prefer linking them the way they are but I don't remember or don't really feel like looking into it right now, I'll get to that later. Quadzilla99 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Okay I unwikilinked all the individual years. Quadzilla99 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Could you point out specific examples? If you notice anything you can change them yourself you know. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic, I'd actually appreciate that a lot. I've requested copyediting asistance on the article from the League of copyeditors and a couple of editors and any help in that by a solid editor would be appreciated.Quadzilla99 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Done, changed to your wording. Quadzilla99 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Actually I didn't change that I'm not sure about the second wording seems to put more emphasis on relatively, it seems like you're are going to go on and recount in what ways he was affected. Maybe relatively doesn't even belong there. Basically the sentence is a transition from the All-Star controversy to the end of the regular season and the results of the season (his Rookie of the Yeard award, the playoff results etc}. That is it's real purpose. So keep that in mind when suggesting, perhaps you could even suggest an entirely new wording. Quadzilla99 12:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Addressed have a look. Quadzilla99 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Done. Quadzilla99 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Done per your wording. Quadzilla99 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I wikilinked it (sorry Isotalo). Quadzilla99 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Done. Quadzilla99 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Will get to that, definitely needs to be re-worked. Quadzilla99 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Done, per your wording. Quadzilla99 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Done per your wording. Quadzilla99 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Done. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Actually I haven't fixed all the commas yet. Quadzilla99 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    13. I don't think the ESPY's are important enough to merit a mention in the play's description. I'm satisfied with the current description and wouldn't want to hype it any more given the concerns for weasel words and hagiography that have been thrown around. Feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) DOne, I think either Warhol or Sandy re-worded it. Quadzilla99 08:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    14. The record is for points in a half in the NBA Finals. How would you suggest it be worded? I can't think of anything. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Done, removed. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Done, removed. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Done, removed. Although in case you wondering sports fans generally say so and so has 4 MVPs, since it makes no difference though I removed it.Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Actually I changed my mind a bit most sections I used awards however in the legacy section when they are all in the same sentence I used MVPs to keep the prose flowing, seeing other sports artcles I think it's acceptbale to use sports terminology within reason. Feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Done, removed. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Generally Olympic/International careers are almost universally given separate sections in sports articles usually at the end of the article. Since he was in the Olympics twice (1984 & 1992) you couldn't really move the Olympics section anywhere and keep it chronological. I'll remove the Dream Team reference from the middle of the article. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Actually I'm not sure what to do yet let me a little research and get back to you on that. Quadzilla99 08:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    20. I think there's really no way to describe what happened otherwise. Just saying two people killed his father would give an inadequate description. They are only mentioned in the context of the murder of Jordan's father, the article doesn't go into detail on either of them. It was a very important event in his life which deserves more than a single sentence description. The way it is now the entire event is summarized quickly in 2-3 short sentences and the average reader gets pretty much all they need to know on the subject. Quadzilla99 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) In my opinion of course, feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I redid the style. Quadzilla99 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my grammar above I'm getting a little tired. Quadzilla99 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tomer T 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm a fan, but the image captions alone are crying out for more neutral language: "trademark exposed tongue" "slam dunking prowess" "famous layup" (I would argue that objects can be famous, not moments in time - "the famous second world war"? I think not...) ppg, apg and rpg should be expanded on first use. Finally, at 70KB, the article is too long. I suggest taking time to fix the numerous issues brought up here and relisting as an FAC when that is done. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that play is established fairly well as famous. I mean it was voted play of the decade at the ESPY's. That's not really biased, but I'll change the captions. Do you have any suggestions? How should I mention that his tongue is exposed? I think I fixed the ppg, rpg, and ppg links already. The article is 70 kb but it's actually 41 kb of prose so I don't think it's too long. I mean he is a tremendously important figure. However you're the second editor to raise that objection so I guess if more people tend toward that way some trimming will be in order. Quadzilla99 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a little tired so let me take the time to re-word my response as it was a grammatical nightmare: I think that play is established fairly well as famous, what with the ESPY award and all, but I'll be happy to change the captions. Do you have any suggestions? How should I mention that his tongue is exposed? I mean I could just say "Jordan goes in for a dunk" and that would be unbiased but it would be remarkably bland. As to your other objections, I think I fixed the ppg, rpg, and ppg links already. The article is 70 kb but it's actually 41 kb of prose so I don't think it's too long. I mean he is a tremendously important figure and one of the most recognizable faces in the world. However you're the second editor to raise that objection so I guess if more people tend toward that way some trimming will be in order. It's kind of confusing because none of the first fifteen or so commentators mentioned size, which you think they would have brought up if it had obvious size issues. Quadzilla99 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Sandy pointed out it's actually 37 kb of prose. Quadzilla99 09:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, pending these points I've picked up:

  1. In body text, as I understand it, only full dates should be wikilinked. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am).
  2. In the lead, which should only cover key information, is it necessary to list so many endorsements? Not being American, I've never heard of some of those products, so perhaps restrict to the most prestigious global brands, or elide straight from "his many product endorsements", straight into the Nike Air product, which is of course massively notable.
  3. Presumably, the "Tar Heels" are the team of University of N. Carolina. Not clear from text.
  4. I've added a CN. "many" people wondering about something needs citation.
  5. What's an "enduring video clip"? Do many clips degrade?
  6. "word surfaced" is a mixed metaphor
  7. a "performance for the ages"? I'm not sure they played Basketball in any other age.
  8. The "deeper Celtics" reads peculiarly. I presume you mean that their squad had more strength in depth?
  9. "He quickly became a fan favorite for his exciting high flying style of play and daring drives to the basket". This is referenced twice, but both are member-only access. Please could someone post here what the sources say.
  10. There's an awful lot of use of the slightly more clumsy "would"+verb (would lose, would finish etc) or "went on to"+verb, rather than the expected simple past tense (lost, finished). This would improve the style.
  11. "swept by the Celtics" jargon/non encyclopedic tone
  12. Ditto for ""Bad Boys" group of physical big men" (not wikilinked or referenced, if "Bad Boys" is a quote/saying)
  13. Not quite sure about the career highlight with Craig Ehlo (not linked). In a career littered with distinction, was this really a career highlight? Surely should be referenced if he considers it so.
  14. Claims he resisted his coach and then fell in with his plans needs a cite. I've flagged it.
  15. "Jordan proved more willing deferring to his teammates" makes no sense to me. More willing than who (or when)? At least one comma missing too. And (hard to say while I don't understand the gist) I'd guess it needs a cite if you're saying he was unwilling to do something and then more willing.
  16. "7" and "6" game/s should be spelled, I think, unless this is basketball jargon and should "7-game series" be hyphenated?
  17. "Magic-Bird rivalry" needs some wikilinking, I'd suggest
  18. "Three pointer" in our article is hyphenated (three-point field goal)
  19. "memorable moment" is POV

Before I sign off, I reiterate that this is a great article and very close to FA. It's clearly been a labour of love and a huge amount of work has gone in. Kudos to those concerned and I look forward to seeing it in lights on the Main page some time soon. --Dweller 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  1. We're going to have work on the dates as some people believe they should be linked to the particular NBA seasons (not just sports fans but actually a non-B-Ball fans have said that once or twice too). You think we should just remove them all? All individual years unwikilinked. Quadzilla99 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done, thanks to Warhol.
  3. Done, Tar Heels name removed.
  4. Done, thanks to Warhol I think.
  5. Done, wording changed thanks to Warhol. It was meant to indicate that it been shown on replays countless times on TV.
  6. I'm not sure of a better way to word that, any suggestions? The whole thing was removed by a copyeditor, it was speculative.
  7. I think that is alright, do you have any suggestions as to how word that. It was a great game and remains a playoff record so maybe "put on a record performance"? "put on a record-setting performance"? Suggestions welcome. Done, changed.
  8. It's sounds normal to a sports fan, when we discuss things we say, "Yeah but the Mavs are deeper than the Spurs, they'll outlast them in a seven game series." I can understand how that would sound awkward to a non-sports fan though. Can you think of a suggestion? Basically they had more good players, like if a team has 1-2 good players and another has 6-7 we say the one team is deeper than the other. If anyone knows of a better wording feel free to comment.
  9. Done, on your talk page plus excerpts are shown above. The whole thing was removed.
  10. It's going to be getting more copyediting in the next couple of days from the League of Copyeditors and some other editors I asked maybe they can fix that. I think that's done, it's been copyedited by several editors.
  11. I wikilinked it and kept it in since swept is a very common term. I think it works better that way people can learn a little general sports lingo. Feel free to comment.
  12. "Bad Boys" was their popular nickname (they played a very physical somewhat borderline dirty style of play). I've wikilinked it to the section of the Pistons article that explains it. Feel free to comment. Further fixed and explained by Warhol, in addition to WIkilinking.
  13. That's actually a very famous play as Zagalejo said below, it's actually in Gatorade commercials running right now. Have you seen them? They're pretty good actually they use computer animation to show Jordan missing the shot because he didn't drink Gatorade.
  14. Done, cite added thanks to Warhol. Incidentally Jordan also admits this in his TV special "Michael Jordan: Air Time" if I remember correctly, at least in one of his interviews.
  15. Done, I think. More willing than in the past is what was meant. I remember him mentioning that in one of his videos, he talked about trusting his teammates more and not trying to do everything himself. But I just removed it and changed the wording a little. When I find the source of the direct quote from him or maybe his coach maybe it can go back in it's not vital.
  16. I'm not sure what the exact policy I'll have to look into that.
  17. Done.
  18. Done.
  19. How would you recommend wording that? The basic thing is it's used to bring up a play or event that stands out, so any wording that servers that purpose will be fine. Done, changed I think it should be satisfactory.
Okay I've responded to your objections to the best of my abilities. Warhol already had answered many of them. To be clear I think everything should be resolved except for 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, and 19. I have asked for clarification or your suggestions on those. Of course you'll have to look through and see if you're happy with the work done by Warhol and myself on the ones I consider addressed. They might still be unsatisfactory to you. Quadzilla99 08:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all addressed now, have a look. Quadzilla99 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I copyedited the article I re-worded most of your suggestions. You're comments do not seem at all controversial so feel free to change any that I may have missed. Warhol13 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In basketball circles, the Craig Ehlo play is known simply as The Shot. Compared to some of the other things Jordan did in his career, it may not seem that important, but it does appear very frequently in commercials and video montages. Jordan's reaction to the play is very dramatic, so people have enjoyed watching it over and over again. Zagalejo 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll respond to all of your objections in detail later Dweller, however as the article is currently undergoing a major copyedit by the League of Copyeditors rather than create edit conflicts I can't do so right now. Two things though, "Bad Boys" was a very popular nickname given to the Pistons during those championship years, and excerpts from the sources used to designate that Jordan became popular very quickly are already posted above. Quadzilla99 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. Quadzilla99 11:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Also, I see Warhol has already addressed several of those concerns. Quadzilla99 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Support I copyedited this article tonight in response to Blnguyen and the fancrust. I emplore you who objected on these grounds to re-read the article and hope that your objections will be assuaged. I took out all the superflous adjectives and replaced them with normal ones. Also, in regards to those who believe the article is too long: What exactly would you take out? Everything in there is notable. I believe the article does a great job of summarizing a lot of stuff. I tire of the notion that there can only be a set length to an article. Finally, all of the citations have been correctly formatted (in regards to the SandyGeorgia opposition). Warhol13 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, length is fine, and footnotes are now consistently and completely formatted—they did not have a consistent format before, but Quadzilla and I worked on them. Next, I'm checking to see if dashes have been fixed (they were all over the map), and will re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Still too much gratuitous use of adjectives praising him. The facts more or less speak for themselves, we don't need to hear 30 times things like vividly illustrated, enormous success, etc. While his success does warrant positive treatment of his skills, it's easier and less jarring for the reader if you just tell us the facts. You don't have to be dry, but hagiographic isn't the way to go either. If this is toned down, I can only imagine what it was like. Compare the illustrious description of his basketball with the toned down description of his baseball. When from what I can recall he was widely derided for being a mediocre baseball player and giving up basketball for it. If anything the Wizards comeback section is way to long given it's importance to the general topic. Especially in comparison to the dream team coverage. - Taxman Talk 03:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay we'll definitely try to to tone it down some more but like I said earlier almost every description of him reads that way. I say the following just to state my opinions not start an argument as I'm definitely going to try to address your concerns to the letter, but I think some of you guys are thinking of some imaginery standard which exists in no description of him in reality. I mean look at the Britannica article:[16] There it states in the opening sentence, "American collegiate and professional basketball player, widely considered to be the greatest all-around player in the history of the game." and "At 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 metres), Jordan, a guard, was an exceptionally talented shooter and passer and a tenacious defender. He earned the nickname “Air Jordan” because of his extraordinary leaping ability and acrobatic maneuvers." We never even said outright he was the greatest of all time. I mean the stuff printed in Encyclopedia Britannica would be considered radically biased and full of weasel words and POV if it appeared here and everything here is sourced. People here would say the Britannica article reads like a fanboy article, when actually it's just stating common knowledge. And the MSN Encarta article,[17] (just use MSN search to get it for free) is the same way as is any other mainstream description. But don't get upset like I said I'm just stating my opinions and we will work on it some more and make it more generic. Also I agree with your comments about the Wizards/Dream Team and will do some work on that. I suspect some Washington residents worked on that section as it does probably have too much info in it. Quadzilla99 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed some of your concerns Taxman I hope you'll come back and have a see. The Wizards section was shortened by a couple sentences, and several things were changed to be more generic. Several adjectives were also removed. Also as you'll see above if you make any specific objections I'll be more than happy to deal with them individually. Quadzilla99 09:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is it's better to come out and say he is widely regarded as the best, etc, if the facts support that, than it is to use large numbers of exceptionally flowery adjectives throughout the article. A few, that are directly supported by reliable sources are ok. There was just about 9 times too many. If we're not talking an 80-90% reduction, it's probably not there, and checking quickly I can see it's still not. This is a case where less is more. It's much better to state the facts, than use so many praising adjectives. Similar for the Wizards section, it wasn't a couple sentences too long, it was a couple paragraphs too long. - Taxman Talk 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off calling him the greatest ever outright or saying he is widely regarded as the greatest will never fly. If you see the article's talk page it's been tried before and it always ends up in prolonged dispute and edit wars. Some of the so-called "flowery" descriptions are needed and accurate to describe certain events and they aren't included because people want to portray him as the best. I mean here's the problem, take for instance the fact that he was wildly and almost inconceivably popular early on in his rookie season. This is shown above as he received prolonged standing ovations in opposing arenas, he went to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated with the heading a "Star is Born", and he became an instant media sensation who started appearing in numerous national commercials. We don't really have the space to mention all that, and it would probably be labelled as cruft by some mal-intentioned editors if we did. How do we express that without sounding biased? We could just say he was an immediate success and a media sensation as a rookie, which is true but it sounds biased. Are we not supposed to mention it? It seems like if we just list his resume or describe his career we sound biased because it was so good. I mean how do we express how exceptionally popular he was without sounding biased? In addition as mentioned before our version is now tame when compared to Encyclopedia Britannica (!). Think about that. Wikipedia has gotten so NPOV paranoid that it's almost impossible to call something outstanding or standout in their fields even if it is obvious, well-sourced, and consensus that it is. To just remove every positive adjective from this article would be a little ridiculous in my opinion. Anyway that's my rant. As to addressing your objections I've removed about a total of 8-9 sentences from the Wizards section (including his receiving of the pentagon flag) since your original comments, in addition to removing/rewording some phrases. Probably the best way to go about this is to just list your specific objections and we can address them one by one. Quadzilla99 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really the only to do this, other than removing all positive adjectives from the article, is to list specifics and discuss them. I mean you could turn the article into this but who would want to read it? Quadzilla99 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual suggestions would also be welcome as to wording that you might want changed. Perhaps adjectives could be found that you feel are more suitable. Quadzilla99 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't quite that hard. As I mentioned, remove about 80-90% of them and we'll be in business. The one's left should then be those that are truly required for the article to be factually accurate and can be very solidly sourced. - Taxman Talk 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what you're saying is that here on Wikipedia we shouldn't use adjectives like large or small or strong or weak even if they are patently obvious because they might sound biased. Also I notice you agree that the article is 100% NPOV as you never pointed out that any of them are incorrect you just stated they sound incorrect. I mean if you had an objection to any of them I could present simple evidence, which as was pointed out above by Zagalejo among others would be trivially easy to do, to describe and show how they are actually simple summaries (like saying a Tyrannosaurus Rex was large for a dinosaur or that the Sun is hot etc.). At this point I don't think it matters anyway as even the people who made detailed complaints have ignored my changes and requests for feedback left here and on their talk pages. Quadzilla99 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not agree to that, so please don't claim I did. No, that's not a valid comparison, because you're not just saying he's a talented player, you're using large numbers of superlative adjectives throughout the article, and many of them are gratuitous. It's clear you're too emotionally involved in this article to reallize it's not NPOV. - Taxman Talk 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you just embarassed yourself a little. In the last day or two I've changed "performed exceptionally well" to "performed well", "known for being a tremendous clutch performer" to "known for being a clutch performer", "a performance for the ages" to "a record-setting performance", "he was feared throughout the league as one of the game's best clutch performers" to "he was well known throughout the league as a clutch performer", "had another exceptional season" to "led the league in scoring again", "fanatical work ethic" to "solid work ethic" "Jordan featured a complete offensive game" to "Jordan featured a versatile offensive game", "55-point outburst" "55-point game", "tremendous jumping ability" to "jumping ability", "could draw fouls from his opponents at will" to "drawing fouls at a high rate", "Jordan capped off what may have been the most spectacular seven-year run by an athlete ever" to "Jordan capped off an impressive seven-year run where he attained seven scoring titles and three championships," among several others, and thanks to another editor the Wizards section has been cut in half and you come here complaining? How about oh, I don't know looking at the article every once in a while, at least 75% of your concerns have been addressed. They're being done at the moment, seriously look at the article compared to when you first complained. In addition please say something about the Britannica article, I mean I've only mentioned it to you ten times. The terms being removed were no more "flowery" than the ones in Encyclopedia Britannica (!) or MSN Encarta or any other mainstream description of him.
In any case they're being removed, if you want to be constructive I'm having a problem expressing how much of a success and a media sensation he quickly became in his rookie season with the restriction on adjectives. I think it's important as he received standing ovations in several opposing arenas early in his rookie season. I guess I'll just mention the SI cover he appeared on one month into his rookie seaosn with the headline "A Star is Born" and the standing ovations he got in his first game in MSG and other places. But you know what mentioning that will probably be considered fancruft. Maybe just mention the SI cover? Also could you please just look over the article and maybe make some suggestions about how things could still be expressed without using adjectives? It is important to include that players constantly get compared to him and that a generation of kids and young players grew up idolizing him in his legacy section (I've included a sentence whcih states Lebron James and Dwyane Wade consider MJ their role model using sources with direct quotes from them). Also it's important that his style of play and acrobatic moves influenced young players. What should I do? Not say these things? Quadzilla99 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making FAC into a personal issue is uncalled for. Statements like "Wow you just embarassed yourself a little" are not helpful and serve only to discourage participation in the process of improving articles. When I see gratuitous descriptions like "vividly illustrated" in the lead I know it's highly likely there's more problems still in the article. So yes, as I've said multiple times, you do state sourced facts that show success or lack thereof, instead of gratuitous adjectives. Yes just mention the SI cover. I'm sorry I don't have time to point out every specific problem and specifically how to fix it. If I did, I would have just fixed it. But I can still point out when there is an overall problem that other people have repeatedly pointed out and it still hasn't been solved. - Taxman Talk 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just call a truce, the Britannica/Encarta point I made was a good one and the article looks nothing like it did even two hours ago. Quadzilla99 18:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vividly was removed incidentally. Quadzilla99 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't have time for a thorough re-review now and I may not for a day or so. Don't worry, if a few other people feel the issue has been adequately addressed, that will be taken into account. What concerns me is the issues are endemic in the way the article was written. Another example I saw from the lead is "enormous success of Nike's Air Jordan sneakers". That's not such a terrible problem because I believe you could support that fact, but the fact is the article doesn't. The section on business interests does nothing to support the enormous success statement with sales figures, comparisons, etc. and even the assertion that Jordan fueled it. To support the word enormous you essentially need a source that claims that directly, and not just some numbers backing up a large amount of sales. Enormous success is a comparison to nearly all other shoe sales and even sales of other products. - Taxman Talk 21:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enormous removed for now in lieu of a source, Sandy struck her object and is now neutral, Rama's arrow still has some issues. Incidentally I didn't add it originally. Although I've done a lot of work on this article if you look at a version of it in July you'll see a lot of the statements were here before I even started on Wiki. So I don't have a personal attachment to many of them and will be happy to remove them. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure if you look at it a version of it July to now you'll see it's actually been toned down some from where it was when I joined or at least is the same. In addition I did not add many of the statements that were considered fawning and have since been removed ("vividly illutrated", "spectacular seven year run", "amazed fans and opponents" etc, etc) so like I said I'll remove them gladly if asked). Getting to work on other issues. Quadzilla99 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I really think this article has been scaled down to the level of acceptability. From the start to finish. Taxman, you're a respected admin, and there's really no stopping you from just tearing out all the gratuity you don't like if you think that's going to help this gain an FA, and in the larger scheme of things, make WP a better place. And no, I'm no fan of MJ, I don't really like him that much (no offence Quad). Chensiyuan 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would using the statement 'Michael Jordan is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time' be biased or push a POV? Stating that he is 'widely considered the greatest' seems factual. There are dissenters which is why it would be biased to say that he "is the greatest player of all time". But the majority of fans, players, and critics consider him to be the greatest. And the league itself states in the intro to Jordan's biography that 'By acclamation, MJ is the greatest basketball player of all time). Does anyone think that the statement is biased or pushes POV? If so can you please explain why? Jmpstrtr 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously we don't have time for this now it pushes the POV as there are a handful of people that disagree. Also considering the tame obvious statements rejected here it would be stupid. Anyway, this is a single purpose account whose sole motive seems to be to include the following lead, or some similar version: "Michael Jeffrey Jordan (born February 17, 1963) is a retired American professional basketball player. He is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time and one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century. With his unique combination of speed, strength, improvisational ability and unquenchable competitive desire he single handledly redfined the NBA (National Basketball Association) superstar and became the most effectively marketed athlete of his generation."[18] As has been pointed out on the MJ talk page this has been tried in the past and led to widespread complaints and repeated removals by other editors. Quadzilla99 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously we don't have time for this now"? "It would be stupid"? Would someone else please look at the talk page and see how Quadzilla99 has tried to silence this dialogue repeatedly without offering any helpful criticism? The irony is that Quadzilla99 was the one that pointed me to this page and asked me to move the discussion over here, and then has immediately tried to stop any discussion here once again.
The intro that I proposed on the talk page is being copied and pasted here out of context. It was offered only to demonstrate how the phrase 'widely considered the greatest' could be used without pushing POV and could be incorporated with other points. I honestly don't care in the slightest whether this intro is used in any form. Since proposing it i have realized that the wording of the later part is probably inappropriate since words like 'unquenchable' are charged and do push POV. A word like 'unquenchable' is more marketing than fact. But I think that this is a seperate issue from the 'widely considered the greatest' question. And several other users on the Talk page have agreed.
Unresolved: Can anyone that has a problem with 'widely considered the greatest' please explain why it's biased. Yes there are a handful of people that don't consider Mj the greatest but the wording 'widely considered' acknowledges this fact. Jmpstrtr 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the intro above "was offered only to demonstrate how the phrase 'widely considered the greatest' could be used without pushing POV" then maybe you don't understand what POV is, as that entire statement reeks of it. It looks more appropriate to a love letter than an encyclopedia. As I've pointed out it's been tried in the past and has led to problems (that's why the current into was settled on). Besides it's already mentioned in the lead that the is considered one of the 1-2 greatest athletes of the century, that's enough for people to know his place in history. Quadzilla99 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You only copied and pasted the entire proposed intro here to confuse the discussion and take focus away from my question - which you still haven't answered. I just finished mentioning that I don't believe that the rest of that intro is neutral enough, and you choose to ignore that completely and then tell me I don't understannd POV. Look through this entire discussion (here and on the talk page) and you will see that you still haven't offered a single piece of evidence that the phrase 'widely considered the greatest' is biased. I understand what POV is and my concern is that your misuse of the POV argument is blocking this discussion. The only 'evidence' you just offered is that ' it's been tried in the past and has led to problems'. But that obviously doesn't answer why it's biased. It's obvious the current version leads to problems as well since I am not the only one who has voiced a concern. If you really believe that I don't understand POV then teach me (and the others on the talk page who agree with me). Ignore everything else and simply tell us why the phrase 'widely considered the greatest' pushes POV. Jmpstrtr 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for this discussion. I've responded to you on the article's talk page, I merely pointed out this FAC to you after reading your original proposal to you to show you that several editors don't like describing Jordan positively, they would prefer a more generic, formal description which is currently being attempted. Quadzilla99 14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place for this discussion and you have done nothing to answer my question on the talk page. Indeed Taxman commented earlier on this page that there wouldn't be a problem with wording such as 'widely considered the best' as long is it could be backed up. Your response then was just as vague saying 'it wouldn't fly'. I am (along with several other users on the talk page) suggesting the staement is backed up and is factual not biased. And I am simply asking for anyone that disagrees to explain why. You continue to point out that other editors have problems with the POV in the article as a whole. But this is irrelevant and does not answer the question. You seem to be grossly misrepresenting the other editors on this page when you say that they "don't like describing Jordan positively". From what I've read many editors are simply trying to remove any unnecessary emotional language from the article and there is debate as to what is necessary and unnecessary. This is an entirely seperate issue from the wording of 'widely considered the greatest' and yet for some reason you can not seperate the two. Please I am asking you in good spirit: If you don't think I understand POV then let's put this to bed: Simply telll us what makes the words 'widely considered the greatest' biased. Jmpstrtr 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fresh start

Okay, even though I didn't think the original version was biased and stated so (repeatedly) I made a concerted effort to meet people's concerns. The article was given a copyedit by two other editors and I would hope people will give it a fresh look with an open mind despite the heated debate that previously took place. As of this moment I consider the current version to be an almost brand new version. If you have any individual suggestions I will address them. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see an imbalance and lot of fancruft - take the section "Jordan's legacy." First off, we know that the "Legacy" is that of Jordan becoz the article is "Michael Jordan." The entire section is littered with praising quotes, a glowing summary of his career. There is no need to quote so many people - perhaps just the Magic Johnson comment should be enough. The "next Michael Jordan" thing is not needed (I know, I know it describes the impact of Jordan but after Kobe Bryant retires, I'm sure some commentators will talk of the "next Kobe." It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia) Thirdly, the "Legacy" is not merely of his achievements, but also controversies in career and personal life (the latter is not covered well). I don't see the negative stuff, criticism being mentioned. My suggestion is to drop off all judgmental statements (the quotes, the Jordan is one of the greatest - once in the lead is enough) and simply let the facts of Jordan's life and career do the talking. Rama's arrow 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, a legacy is something that has been handed down from the past, as from a predecessor. The fact that players have been dubbed the next Michael Jordan is perhaps the defining achievement in his career--his lasting legacy. Your reasoning for not wanting it included makes no sense. Under your assumption, you state, because players may(a big assumption) some day be dubbed the next Kobe, you think it's wrong to state that part of Jordan's lasting legacy is that players were often considered the next Jordan??? That makes no sense at all. In addition, using someone like Kobe Bryant, who has yet to finish his career and leave his own legacy, as a comparison to someone who has redefined so many aspects of the NBA, makes for a poor argument. Finally, we're speaking of Jordan's NBA legacy, how does his personal life have anything to do with that? What kind of impact has that had on the game? What controversy has had a significant impact on the game???? Zodiiak 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I really can't think of any major criticism of him we are leaving out. We have the criticisms of his work as an executive, the gambling, and his affair. I'll includ some more things about his impact which will tone it down, we had the info about the rumor that he kept Isiah Thomas off the Olympic team which was removed by Abecadare (a non-b-ball fan), because as Abedecare pointed out it's speculative. The two things I'll mention are that a) even though he was a well-rounded player many credit his "Air Jordan" image with causing young kids to only be concerned with dunking and acrobatic moves (no I won't word it that way) and b) even though he was intstrumental in spreading the appeal of the NBA around the world, interest in the NBA in America has never reached the levels of when he was playing. As for including the personal life info into the legacy section, I really don't think that's going to be part of his legacy, as most people won't remember him for that. Maybe I'm wrong. As for the Next Michael Jordan thing I think it's really important to include that because if you're a B-Ball fan you'll it happens constantly, (and I mean constantly) unless Kobe ends up being better than Jordan I don't think it will stop (except maybe in LA to Kobe's successor). I mean why would you constantly compare new players to the second best player of all time? Also I kept the quotes in as they were either a) famous as in Bird's case or b) informative as in West's case (used to illustarte how much respect people had for his defense, which is important as he was generally known for his offense). Also West is a renowned Basketball mind who was a very successful Basketball GM (he actually pulled off the deal which got Kobe for Vlade Divac one of the first high school draft picks in the modern era). I'll try to find more things to include to balance out though besides those two. Quadzilla99 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section was re-named by the way. Thanks Sandy for jumping on that quick. Quadzilla99 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I'll point out is that like I said above, although I've done a lot of work on this article if you look at a version of it in July you'll see a lot of the statements were here before I even started on Wiki. So I don't have a personal attachment to many of them and will be happy to remove them. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure if you look at it a version of it July to now you'll see it's actually been toned down some from where it was when I joined. In addition although I don't consider them biased personally, I did not add most of the statements that were considered fawning and have since been removed ("vividly illutrated", "spectacular seven year run", "amazed fans and opponents", etc, etc). Getting to work on issues above. Quadzilla99 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, negative impact he had added plus mentioned that his contributions to the games popularity were somewhat fleeting, at least here in America. If there are any substantive criticisms of him which anyone feels have been left out please mention them. There really are none I'm aware of. Quadzilla99 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I struck my object, as all of the structural issues appear to have been addressed. If you can entice Deckiller to do a ce, pls ping me for Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a watcher and contributor to the FAC process, I find it fascinating that Michael Jordan is going through such an intense review. Why him? Might it be because he is a sports icon? I don't see this kind of scrutiny being leveled at the pages of scientists or political figures. It really is quite noticeable. A survey of past FACs would be fascinating. Is there some sort of bias operating here? Anyway, I would like to invite all of you over to Ronald Reagan at the moment. That page has serious issues and could deal with a thorough review. Thanks. Awadewit 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to discourage discussion here, thanks. Your comment should probably be deleted as it has nothing with the article. Quadzilla99 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out what I see as a disproportionate attack on this article. I would like to understand the reason for it. Understanding why people are so invested in the review of this article while they are neglecting others is indeed important. But the discussion can be removed to the FAC talk page. Awadewit 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe it's a misunderstanding but it seemed like you were telling people not to comment here anymore. Since there is no consensus, and several people oppose I'd like to continue the discussion going obviously. People are working very hard to address everyone's concerns and we want them to come back and look at the work. Also, and perhaps most importantly, maybe it's so long because I respond way too much and in too much length. :) Quadzilla99 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have an answer for that, in my case. The NBA Project has one other FA so far—the recently-passed Bill Russell. IMNSHO, it went through FAC in pretty bad shape, and not a single reviewer looked at the structural issues in the article. I view a serious review for Project members as a learning curve, that hopefully won't have to be repeated, as they learn the ropes. Sports articles by nature, for example, have a gazillion dashes and hyphens, so what would be a minor nitpik in another topic (WP:DASH) becomes more important on sports articles. Refs should be correctly formatted. If Project members learn these minor structural things, their future articles will benefit. I try to always put extra effort into an FAC when many Project members are on board. It's discouraging when Projects nominate repeated FACs with the same deficiencies. I think the effort on MJ has been worth it, and it will eventually emerge FA. Further, because Project members have been helpful and cooperative in the review, I believe we can expect great articles from them in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quadzilla99, I don't really see how you can interpret my remarks to mean that people shouldn't comment any more. I simply wanted to understand why this article was drawing so much attention as well as points these reviewer's attention to another article on a major figure that is not receiving much attention. I would like to thank SandyGeorgia for her explanation. Those kinds of reasonings help curious people like myself better understand the process. Awadewit 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I said in my last post that maybe it was a misunderstanding and that it seemed like that was the case. If you look at what I just said I was acknowledging that I may have been wrong. A person could interpret you to be saying, "Why are we spending so much time on an athlete when there are more important people to discuss?" If, like you said you didn't mean that, then it's a misunderstanding and is not worth getting into a long discussion over. I'm sure if you brought it up on the talk page people would be willing to discuss it and it might draw more attention to other articles you feel are being ignored. Quadzilla99 06:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments I'm sorry but as per the points of Blnguyen and Taxman, you need to do more to remove fancruft. I just don't see the need for all those quotes and opinionated statements, which are not really encyclopedic or necessary. As far as controversies, one example is: why was he fired from the Wizards? The article states that it was a "surprise" - why was it a surprise? Wasn't the issue discussed afterwards in the media? Weren't there allegations that Jordan ridiculed other Wizards players and they resented his domineering attitude? When one read the whole article as it flows, one gets the impression that the only reason that Jordan's firing was a "surprise" was because he was such an awesome player and the Wizards owner must be off his rocker. Jordan was also rumored to have had affairs with many women - I understand that such rumors are not always worthy of mention, but this is one possible area of research. There are also some structural issues - I don't think the Olympic career section should be so short, albeit that Jordan was mainly with the NBA. Olympics have a distinct reputation. The sections dealing with his "post-retirement" life and "business and media" should be merged. Also, I'm surprised that no books are being used as references (let alone citations). Perhaps that is why you're having so many stylistic and prose issues - sometimes I get the feel that this is a composite of various magazine profiles of Jordan. When I read about his multiple retirements, I asked why and I didn't see any analytical (not opinion, mind you) information on that. A biographical work would normally have examined that aspect. I don't think any of these are critical issues - a couple of days more work will undoubtedly fix 'em. I also don't mind if you don't, if others feel these are not really an issue. Its a damn fine article (and you've Quadzilla have done an amazing job) but is it the best that can be done? Not yet. Rama's arrow 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Well Blungeyun last commented on the article 4 days ago, this is the version when he left:[19], and he commented that several descriptive terms were inappropriate (which have all since been removed)). He also stated that he favored including quotes in quotation marks to indicate that they were someone's opinion when describing him. I've contacted him, and asked him to re-read it. Taxman also stated that he hasn't read the entire article in several days and will look it over in a day or two. I'm saying that because all of their individual points have been addressed I believe. More to the point though, that Larry Bird quote does come off as a bit fawning but it's sort of famous I;m not sure whether to remove it. Some of the reasons Jordan was fired were recently removed by another editor who copyedited the article, I've re-inserted them. There was no mention of his riding of his teammates in Washington though, it's hard to find a direct source on that (as no player or coach will normally come right out and say it) so I just added that he openly criticized his teammates in the media, which is easy to find a source for (That's now in the Wizard section). I don't really feel the affairs are notable enough to merit inclusion personally, one negative thing which might be notable enough is the fights he often had in practice. That could go in the player profile sections where his competitiveness is mentioned maybe. I also added that Jordan has stated that he regrets his comeback with Washington and would not have some back if he knew he would be fired as soon as he stopped playing. I don't really favor merging those two sections you mentioned as he was such a huge media figure. As for their being no book sources, this is true but there was extensive research. I'm an NY Times subscriber and I looked through their archives extensively. I don't really see anything notable left out, it's hard when you're trying to keep the size down there's so many things which are borderline and don't make the cut. As for the retirements, here's what I know is true about them (Obviously I'm not going to use sources but I could source all of this stuff easily). He retired the first time because he was feeling burned out and his father had died, he openly stated this and he took up baseball because it was father's dream goal for him. When talking about why he retired it's hard to include anything that can't be directly quoted to him, because obviously other such stuff is often speculation and guesswork. He retired the second time because the team was being broken up and Jackson was fired. He often stated that he didn't want to be part of re-building process and also stated repeatedly that he wouldn't play for any coach other than Jackson. The breaking up of the team was mostly done by management. The Bulls front office stated they didn't want to be like the Celtics, a team that held on to old players too long instead of re-building, and subsequently became mired in mediocrity. They wanted to tear the team down and have a poor record which would get them high draft picks which hopefully they could use to rebuild into a new young team. Pippen was unhappy with his contract and demanded to be traded (they wouldn't extend it because he was 32 years old, if they extended his contract they couldn't tear the team apart) and Jackson quit after he was disrespected by the Front Office (reportedly before the 1997-98 season Bulls' GM Jerry Krause told Jackson, "I don't care if you go 82-0 you're fucking gone." Krause and Jackson never got along), and Rodman obviously wasn't part of their rebuilding plans, as he was 36 and probably not the best role model for young kids. All that probably belongs in the Bulls article though. The third time he was just old. Quadzilla99 18:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said above I oppose combining any sections. About the supposed bias, I, like most people, felt the previous version was fine but opposing the current version is getting almost willfully ignorant. It's so generic and bland that I think it contains almost no adjectives. It contains 2 quotes about him and mentions negative things which probably aren't even notable enough for inclusion into the article, just to appear more neutral. Aaron Bowen 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dude, I agree with you but sayings things that way is not going to help especially since I'm having a hard time getting people to read through it again. Quadzilla99 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quadzilla99, your behavior in this FAC has been highly innapropriate. Berating opposers is simply not acceptable. I appreciate the efforts to improve the article, but your methods of interacting here need improvement. As I told you above, once most people feel a set of comments have been resolved, you don't have to worry about them. So please continue the efforts that focus on the article, but not the rest. - Taxman Talk 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I think what you just said was false except for maybe one instance, but I'm not going to bother going into long detail as to why as it will just start up again. To be clear Aaron Bowen has always supported and was calling people who still oppose willfully ignorant and I was basically trying to tell him not to say that about them as it won't help. Also the objections as to hagiography were not as clear cut as some people made it seem as they were disputed by several people other than myself, (Chensiyaun, Onamatopeia, Zagalejo, Peter Isatalo, Manderiko, Zodiaak, Warhol). They've all been removed since and Sandy who objected partly for Hagiography reasons now supports. Me and Sandy argued originally and have since become fairly congenial, so if you just give me specific issues I can address them. Once more, if you get a chance to read through the article let me know. I think if you just read through it now you would support it. Quadzilla99 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Fairly" congenial? <pout> ... I guess MissManners may need to review my writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you've been extremely congenial, you know I respect your work and even asked for your help on some other things I was working on. I meant we've become fairly congenial or rather what I really meant to say is basically that we get along fine now or rather well. Quadzilla99 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I just butchered that sentence and made it come out wrong. Like I said I asked to look over some other things I'm working on becasue I respect your opinions/knowledge, so you know I think pretty highly of you. Quadzilla99 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think it's good to go now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I agree with Sandy. I had some concerns early on, but they have since been resolved. I thought the adjectives went a little overboard, so I am happy to see they have been toned down a little. As mentioned previously, I do feel that the length is appropriate. Also, I believe most of the early concerns have all been alleviated. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't scream, but it might not hurt for people to give the article a couple more copy-edits. Just skimming through it, I found the phrase "the Bulls made the the playoffs" along with a run-on sentence. Also, are there any copy-editors out there who happen to be experts on comma usage? Some of the commas throughout the article seem unnecessary, and sometimes it seems like there should be a comma when there isn't one. Overall, though, the article is shaping up pretty nicely, and I'm leaning towards supporting it. Zagalejo 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SBD was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Michael_Jordan&oldid=115262238"