Talk:Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neil916 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My name is Neil916 and I will be performing this GA review.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose, spelling, and grammar issues make it difficult to make it through the article without frequently stopping and rereading sections. The article needs a major copyedit. Random examples: "Having never dunked in an actual game, he contested in the 1993 NBA Slam Dunk Contest, after Nuggets president and general manager Bernie Bickerstaff send NBA league officials a tape of Abdul-Rauf showcasing his dunking ability" [contested in?], "In his first season in the NBA he was selected in the all-rookie second team." [missing comma], "After not playing for the entire 1999–00 season he signed for to the Vancouver Grizzlies in August 2000." [missing comma], "Two days later, the league was able to work out a compromise with him, whereby he would stand during the playing of the national anthem but could close his eyes and look downward." [awkwardly worded], "In an apparent publicity stunt linked to this controversy, four employees of Denver's KBPI radio station were charged with misdemeanor offenses related to entering a Colorado mosque and playing "The Star-Spangled Banner" on a bugle and trumpet, in a provocative response to Abdul-Rauf's refusal to stand for the national anthem." [one paragraph that is all one awkwardly-worded sentence]. Those examples are just a few that I randomly plucked out and shouldn't be considered anywhere near a complete list. The wording, grammar, and (especially) punctuation in the article needs some polish.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section does not accurately summarize the article. The lead suggests that Abdul-Rauf had one of the most accurate free-throw shooting records, but the article states only that he came close to breaking the record in two seasons of his career. Is his presence in the Slam Dunk Contest a major highlight of his career that warrants its inclusion in the early part of the lead section that summarizes the article? According to the linked source, he didn't even perform that well, finishing in 6th place out of 7 contestants (a fact not mentioned in the article, either). The rest of the second paragraph of the lead reads poorly, with little relationship between the sentences in that paragraph.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citation templates are used and sources are linked from the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some references are to blogs but I did not notice any that are being used to support controversial statements that are likely to be challenged. Double-check those sources that are used in the article from the perspective of somebody who wants to nitpick and challenge every single cited fact in the article. Is (for example) theshadowleague.com the best source you can find, or is there something more mainstream and trusted?
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are unsupported statements in the article that leave me wondering if those are actual facts or random elements that were added by a drive-by editor based upon something they "heard somewhere". I mainly noticed them in the "National anthem controversy" section, which is the most important part of this article to have reliable citations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensiveness is somewhat lacking in places, especially when dealing with the player's playing history. In places, it reads like a simple recitation of easily-obtainable facts "he played for this team in this year, he played for that team in that year" without elaborating about why he left the team (cut, traded, other) or how he fit in on the team (sat on the bench all season, was a starter). The gap in his playing career between the time he played for the Vancouver Grizzlies and Ural Great is not explained. Was his playing for the Grizzlies just a temporary gig? Did he change his mind again? The article also states that he came out of retirement for a third time to play got Aris Thessaloniki, but by my count, that was his fifth team since the only other mention of retirement in the article. In short, too many gaps end up leaving the reader confused.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues here
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No undue weight given to any aspects.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Editing on the article is pretty inactive, with no battles over content.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	1 image only, tagged with a credible copyright tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image in the infobox is relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Failed for 1a, 1b, and 3a. I think the missing references are a minor issue that will be easy to fix. The other items are more substantial barriers to passing.