Talk:Stephen Curry/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Beemer03 (talk · contribs) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Verylongandmemorable (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Using copyvio detector, only flagged passages are quotes, all seem appropriately cited. Will complete spot-check below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead & Infobox

Both look great, lead is on the longer side (~450 words, MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 250-400) but I think it's well structured and appropriate considering the article's length.

Early life

"During this time" is a bit vague, I assume this is relative to Dell Curry's retirement but explicitly specifying the year/time period would help

College Career

Freshman season

Most statistics in the first paragraph are missing citations

Sophomore season

"As a result of Curry's exceptional play" reads as biased without a citation or clear attribution

"Curry also tied Darrin Fitzgerald of Butler for the single-season record for most three-pointers with 158" it would be helpful to specify single-season record: is this for the conference, for D1, for all NCAA?

Junior season

prose is all clear and well cited!

Professional Career

2009-2012

First paragraph, many statistics in the second half are uncited: "most 30-point games by any rookie in 2009-10", comparisons to Lebron/Jordan, specific statlines versus Clippers and Blazers

2012–2014

Second paragraph has many uncited statistics and comparisons

2014-2015, 2015-2016

Both look great, prose is readable and well-cited

2016-2018

"Three days later, he hit 13 three-pointers against New Orleans, becoming the first player in NBA history to make as many three-pointers in a regular-season game." is awkward phrasing, maybe something like Three days later, Curry hit 13 three-pointers against New Orleans, setting a new NBA record for three-pointers in a regular season game.

Some sentences, like "On December 11, Curry hit 2 three-pointers against the Minnesota Timberwolves to pass Steve Nash for 17th on the NBA's career three-pointers list.[130]", feel like unnecessary detail; is there any particular significance to passing Steve Nash or becoming 17th? None of the other milestones from 17th to 10th are mentioned.

Overall this section is very dense with statistics and career milestones (warriors franchise points, career field goals, etc.) and I think could be slimmed down.

Please clarify "Many felt that he should have won Finals MVP.": was this from media members? fellow team mates? fans?

2018-2019

Similar to last section, it is well cited but overall pretty dense

2019-2021

"With this game, he joined Ray Allen and Reggie Miller as the only players to have scored more than 2,500 career three-pointers in NBA history." and "On January 23, in a game against the Utah Jazz, Curry hit 5 three-pointers, moving his career total up to 2,562, passing Miller to move up to second in the NBA's career three-pointers list, trailing only Allen." nearby in the same paragraph feels repetitive, I don't think both notes are necessary.

2021-2022

good section, no issues

National team career

"He initially struggled from the field." is a strange isolated sentence, needs some elaboration or be removed.

Player Profile / Legacy

Both these sections are well-written and cited, but I'm unclear on what the difference between the two sections is intended to be? Both have similar structures and discuss Curry's skill at three-pointers and clutch shooting.

A suggestion to help clarify would be to move the statistics on three-point percentage and long range shooting from the second paragraph of the Legacy section into Player Profile, and then the Legacy section would be more focused on Curry's place in NBA history, impact on the game, etc.

Off the Court

"In August 2019, Curry and Howard University ..." would make more sense in the Philanthropy section

"In July 2019, Curry and his wife launched the Eat. Learn. Play. Foundation in Oakland, California.[402]" needs some explanation on the purpose or significance of the foundation, especially as it is a lone paragraph.

Ref spot-check

From random number generator, checking refs: 13, 47, 53, 64, 97, 99, 102, 127, 140, 145, 155, 160, 166, 180, 200, 216, 221, 252, 273, 275, 288, 297, 299, 300, 315, 328, 341, 354, 366, 370, 378, 381, 393, 396, 439, 444, 445.

[13] Interview from Fellowship of Christian Athletes, no specific mention of Curry and brothers shooting with Hornets players. This source should be replaced or sentence should be removed.
[47] From USA Today, confirms coaches lobbied but failed to make NCAA tournament
[53] From NBA.com, confirms Curry graduated with degree in 2022
[64] From NBA.com, confirms Curry had ankle surgery
[97] From NBA.com, box score from game where Bucks ended Warriors win streak
[102] From NBA.com, box score that shows Curry's 51 points and has article about three-point streak
[127] From ESPN, article confirms Curry broke streak of games with three-pointer, correct date and duration
[140] From ESPN, box score confirms Warriors swept Spurs, Curry had 36 points
[145] From ESPN, box score verifies Curry had 21 points, archived article verifies passing Jason Kidd in threes
[155] From ESPN, article confirms Curry's streak of 200 3s
[160] From ESPN, box score confirms Curry's stats and Warriors victory
[166] From ESPN, article confirms Curry passed Paul Pierce for career 3s
[180] From ESPN, box score confirms Curry's 41 points and 10 3s
[200] From clutchpoints.com, not totally sure about reliability of this source, but it clearly mentions Curry's career high 62 points
[216] From CBS Sports, confirms Curry beating Wilt Chamberlain's record
[221] From NBA.com, confirms Curry's 3 point records
[252] From Sports Illustrated, confirms Curry matches Jordan for playoff points over 35
[273] From NBA.com, confirms Curry matched Christmas day record
[275] From NBC Sports, confirms Curry passed Jordan for 30 point game record
[288] From Bleacher report, doesn't specifically mention Curry making 4 consecutive three-pointers. Source should be replaced or sentenced edited
[297] From ESPN, confirms details of Curry's jump shot
[299] From Yahoo Sports, confirms "Chef Curry" is common English nickname
[300] From NBA.com, confirms Curry and Thompson's joint record for 3s
[315] From clutchpoints.com, video is broken on web archive, cannot confirm Curry's comments on his defense
[328] From Mercury News, confirms Curry is seen as leader on Warriors team
[341] From ABC news, confirms second daughter born in 2015
[354] From Fox Sports, confirms Curry is investor in Active Faith brand
[366] Press release from Howard, confirms details of Curry scholarship/funding for golf team
[370] From Sports Illustrated, mentions Curry rivals Lebron as face of NBA
[381] From CNN Money, confirms Curry's partnership with Under Armor and Curry Brand
[393] From Mercury News, confirms Curry meeting with Obama and support for malaria program
[396] From USA Today, contains full quote
[444] From NBA.com, confirms Curry tying Warriors record for All-Star appearances
[445] From NBA.com, confirms Curry record for all-NBA appearances for the Warriors

Final Comments

@Beemer03: really enjoyed reading this article, I think it is very close to good article status. I've made comments above for each section, mainly just small copy-editing comments or sections that are missing citations. I hope you can fix these in the next week or so and then the article can pass (if you think any comments are unfair or don't need to be addressed please let me know). Also, in the reference spot-check, I noticed 2 sources that did not fully support the content in the article, so those should be fixed; however, considering the total number of references I think they were good on the whole. This is my first good article review; I've tried my best to be constructive but if you have any feedback for me that would be appreciated!

Oppose promotion. Verylongandmemorable, this article is nowhere close to being good if you read the prose properly. The lead shouldn't be cited and the ref bomb is too visible, usage of unrealible sources such as blogs , inconsistent usage of formats from the citations (some publishers or websites aren't italicized and linked), and spotchecks seems to be not conducted properly at this article during the GAN review (look at the ref 177 and 355, 24, 35 rn for example unverified/blogs). Reference 342 seems to be unreliable also, and reference 344 100% proves me that the reviewer did not conduct the spotchecking properly. If you have any questions, chime in to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. 2001:4455:389:2700:20EC:3146:4421:D610 (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to assume good faith, but this is pretty unconstructive. I did read the entire article's prose and made specific comments on the areas where I saw improvements; if you don't like the prose, could you point out specific examples? In terms of the ref spot check, I feel I was clear about my procedure: I checked 10% of the total references, from a RNG, and as you can see from my notes above 95% of them were from mainstream, reputable sources like ESPN, NBA.com, etc. I've now given time to the nominator to fix the references that didn't match or were from blogs. Is there something else I should have done, short of checking every single reference? That was not my impression from Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Verylongandmemorable (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verylongandmemorable, don't listen to the ip, it's a great review. Half of the issues they raised are not in the criteria, and at least half of the rest are false. Good job on putting the article on hold to allow the nominator time enough to fix the issues, many new reviews forget that. I would need to give a larger glance to make sure, but I think you have raised all/most of the issues that could be raised at a GAN review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I checked 10% of the total references". So, basically you admitted? You did not answered my question regarding about the references that I brought here specifically, especially that ref 344 if you actually really checked it? I will also repeat the citation from lead is unnecessary and should be at the body of the article, not only in citations but some of the publishers at the body of the article aren't even italicized yet, and I don't think reviewing a big article is helpful as a only a 3 month editor. I apologize for being blunt, but I don't think I need to be specific with the issues. I will bring this one up to the GAN talk page for attention. 2001:4455:389:2700:68AF:4149:23D4:B384 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have to check every ref comprehensively, this is not a FAC review. Something refs pass through, even more experienced might not have picked up on it. While some of the citations would be better removed from the lead, some makes sense; and they all used in the body too. They have not more than average as a reviewer for a newer reviewer. Bring it up to WT:GAN, you are kinda being combative here. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, even at FAC reviewers don't have to check every ref comprehensively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]