Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].

Juwan Howard

[edit]

Juwan Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a great article with a lot of detail. I have finally gotten a good copyedit from Finetooth after having added a lot of encyclopedic content. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We ran into one problem as far as citing encyclopedic content when we realized that he is married, but there are no good sources regarding this. We are using questionable sources, but the fact isnot likely to be challenged and I was not sure what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also one dab issue with template defaulting to Charlotte Hornets rather than New Orleans Hornets. I am not sure how to handle this template use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add WP:ALT to the final image when the template is reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created the Juwan_Howard#Scouting_report section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, thankyou. Aaroncrick TALK 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Nitpicks:-

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've just looked at the lead and first few paragraphs so far.

Could some of these explanations be added to the article? I think it would help.
I added some more. The paragraph seems quite meaty to me now, but let me know if you want to see even more added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph is fine. It may need copy-editing in places. Could a sentence be added to the lead to the effect of "he became the first player to graduate on time with his class after leaving college early to play in the NBA ... , as most players did not feel the need to attend classes." Or something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he continued to be a productive starter, he never again performed at an All-Star level, and near the end of his contract he was traded at the NBA trade deadline twice to make salary cap room." Very long sentence. Also, the begining of the sentence reads as if the previous sentences have talked about how good he was. But if I've read it right, it has only mentioned three seasons and has not really said how good he was or how successful. And what is a "productive" starter?
Thank you. I split the sentence in half to make two shorter sentences. I think the $100 million contract is sufficient evidence of his success. A productive starter is one who scores points or otherwise contributes to the team. Not sure what else you are looking for here.Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm not clear. I think it would be better to say how he was productive, i.e. how did he contribute. Maybe the lead isn't the place for it, but as I said below, I don't think the lead gives a clear picture of how good he is/was. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastrol, I don't mean to be rude. The current WP:LEAD has the following text "After one season as an All-Rookie player and a second as an All-NBA performer. . .During his first 5 seasons in the NBA, he averaged 19.3 points per game. . ." Any basketball fan knows very well how good he was. Those two phrases may not mean much to you, but anyone who follows basketball understands very clearly how good he was. Anything more would be an overstatement or overemphasis. The lead properly balances his peak and his present state pretty well, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I just establish that this is not written with the general reader in mind but only for basketball fans? If so, I do not feel that I can support it (which I would like to, to be honest, as it seems comprehensive). IMO, FAs should be written with the general reader in mind, and it seems that most of them are. And "any basketball fan" may understand this, but is that enough for FA? Obviously, the entire rules and structure of the sport don't need explaning in depth, but there are points where further brief explanations would make it more accessible for everyone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, it might help to add a comparison stat or two if you have them handy. I'm thinking maybe after "19.3 points a game" something like "X points is the NBA average" would help. Or after "All-Rookie player", maybe something like "Only X rookies out of Y (Z percent) make the All-Star team each season." This would put Howard's accomplishments into a quantitative perspective that any reader would understand without knowing anything about the NBA. Comparisons like this should go into the relevant places in the main text and then could be included in the lead. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010, he is entering his 17th season in the NBA, including 5 for playoff teams": This suggest he played five separate seasons for a different type of team called a playoff team. I assume it means that in five seasons, his teams reached the playoffs?
You are right, and your construction is more clear. I adopted it. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Howard had a successful career at Chicago Vocational Career Academy where he became a 1991 Parade and McDonald's All American and a member of the National Honor Society". Successful how? What did he do there? And while the last items are linked, they make the sentence very bumpy. Could a few words be added to say what they are to make the sentence flow a bit?
Yes. I revised to "Howard attended Chicago Vocational Career Academy, where he was named a 1991 All-American basketball player by Parade magazine and won McDonald's All American honors in a national tournament for boys and girls. He was also chosen for the National Honor Society, which recognizes achievements in scholarship, leadership, service, and character." Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By his sophomore year, he was already expected to be a 1991 blue chip recruit." Seems a bit pointless. If it is necessary to talk about being a "blue chip recruit" (which seems to be an unnecessary term to introduce here), he either was or he wasn't. Why say what he was expected to be? May be better to say that he showed potential, or was expected to be successful, or high hopes were expressed?
    • It is not the case that either he was or he wasn't. What this is saying is that over two years in advance of his senior season recruiting, expectations were high that he would be one of the top recruits at that point two years into the future. The term, which is linked, is a common term in American sports. If you are foreign, it may be lost on you, but suffice it to say it is not random jargon because it has a substantial linked article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I revised to include a clarifying phrase: "By his sophomore year, he was already expected to be a 1991 blue chip recruit, highly prized by college basketball coaches." Does this make the claim more clear? Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"He was the only sophomore named by the league coaches to the 20-man, 1988–89 All-Chicago Public School League squad as a second-team member." Long and a bit clumsy. What is this squad?

OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...attended the Nike Academic Betterment and Career Development (ABCD) camp, which was held annually in Princeton, New Jersey, during the late 1980s,[9] where he was matched against the 7-foot-4-inch (2.24 m) Shawn Bradley." This makes for a very long sentence. Could be tightened up, e.g. "... during the late 1980s [what years?] attended the annual Nike Academic Betterment and Career Development (ABCD) camp in Princeton, New Jersey. While there, he was matched against the 7-foot-4-inch (2.24 m) Shawn Bradley."
I split the sentence in two but retained the existing explanation for the dates as well as Howard's height, which is important because he was considerably shorter than Bradley. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be made explicit? It is not immediately obvious that this is why the info is there. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added "despite having his shots blocked several times by the much taller Bradley" to the subsequent sentence (which also contains the first of the problematic uses of "big men". I hope this makes more clear that Howard excelled even against players with a height advantage. Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clears it up nicely and "big men" sits a little better now it is defined. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There he established himself as one of the best junior big men in the country despite having his shots blocked several times by Bradley." This reads like having shots blocked by Bradley meant he could not be one of the best players in the country . And "best junior big men" sounds jargony and clumsy.
Not sure what would be better. He was a junior in high school, and he was big. Size is very important in basketball. Finetooth (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem with this is the part about "despite having his shots blocked..." I'm not sure "big man" belongs in an encyclopedia, and if it is a common term, maybe it could be linked in some way. Personally I think "tall players" or even "big players" sounds less informal. However, I'm not too bothered if it is that common. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to an NBA or college basketball broadcast. "Big man" is a common term. See below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarastro1. I changed the sentence to read: "At this camp, Howard established himself as one of the best junior-year big men (tall basketball players) in the country despite having his shots blocked several times by the much taller Bradley." I'm hoping that this makes "junior" more clear, makes the importance of the height difference more explicit, and (knock on wood) makes "big man" more meaningful. It is an odd specialized term that might literally be taken to mean a fat guy or hulking brute uninvolved in sports. :-) Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough with this now. If I was been nit-picky, I might still say that he could not be one of the best if his shots were blocked (i.e. as if that by itself would stop him). And as I said, "big man" sits a bit better now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Involved in controversy for receiving a second pair of sneakers, he was sent home early on the last day of the six-day camp." What??? This needs expanding and explaining.
Could we resolve this one by deleting all mention of the sneakers on grounds that it's even less than a hiccup, and the article is already quite long? Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Although it sounded quite interesting! :) And Tony, with the greatest respect, I'm not sure the words "controversy for receiving a second pair of sneakers" is "pretty clear". I doubt most people realise it is illegal to own two pairs of shoes of any type. :) But seriously, if it is staying in it should be made clear why it is controversial. All it needs is "a second pair of shoes was not permitted" (which sounds odd to me, but I'm not a basketballer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one for Tony to decide. I'm the expert on comma splices; he's the expert on basketball. I don't actually know who gave Howard the sneakers or why it would upset anyone." Finetooth (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think sneakergate has more detail than necessary, but the whole story is in the article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also participated in the Bill Cronauer (B/C) camp in Rensselaer, Indiana, which was attended by more than 100 college coaches and where he became ranked as one of the top 10 underclassmen in the country." Long sentence. What is an underclassman? Ranked by who? What is the significance of this?
  • "Howard attended other camps that summer and had a goal of surpassing Deon Thomas as the best big man in the state." What camps? Who is Deon Thomas (I know it's linked, but a few words would suffice to say why this is important)? Big man again.
    • Big man is common basketball lingo. It is common for tall players to play on the front line together and neither officially being the center. Howard eventually moved from center to power forward, both of which are big man positions. Are you averse to the article retaining this common term. It is actually unnatural to me to replace big man with something like front line player.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. If big man is a common term, I'll let it go but would prefer it not to be there as it sounds informal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will my addition of "big men (tall basketball players)" on the first use suffice? Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Covers it nicely, I struck the comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am a sports fan and quite familiar with many sports articles. However, I have only a passing knowledge of basketball and found it hard to follow the beginning of this article (although the rest looks clearer at a quick glance). Most FAs (and GAs for that matter) that I have seen do not use too much jargon so that the general reader can follow them. As a fan, what is not confusing to you may not be understood by others. It only needs the addition of a few words and phrases here and there. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not really establish how or why he was good, but mentions lots about his decline. More on the peak would be good. There is a lot of linking which is distracting, and the article seems to use a lot of jargon which makes it hard to follow for a non-expert who is not prepared to follow every link. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of how good he was, I am wavering about adding that he averaged 7.9 rebounds a season for his first five years or about 7.5 for his first 10 seasons. I just don't see it as a WP:LEAD-worthy fact. I grew up reading the sports page and the jargon seems natural to me. Aside from the term "big man", I am not sure what you mean. I am always willing to listen to suggestions on delinking because I am a heavy linker. I don't know that expanding this article by teaching basketball terms to the reader would be the proper thing to do, but if you have specific problems, I can attempt to address them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Juwan_Howard/archive1&oldid=1136096891"