Talk:2011 NBA lockout/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
I put that in the second paragraph.—Chris!c/t 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe it is correct to say that Stern represented the owners. I think they had another representative and the officially Stern was neutral.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stern represented the owners and wasn't neutral. He always spoke on behalf on the owners during the lockout.—Chris!c/t 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that NBPA and the players union are the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Chris!c/t 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done all 3.—Chris!c/t 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure either. But the main thing is that both are major figures in the union which represent the players through the lockout.—Chris!c/t 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where to put. Anyway, player reps didn't really play a very big role through the lockout.—Chris!c/t 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I am thinking about military battles where the leaders are described. What this article needs is something like. The owners were represented by X, who was hired as title X or the owners empowered Y & Z to be their spokesmen. The players union was structured with each team having an elected player rep who served as their voice. These reps reported to Fisher who was the President of the union. In addition, the Union was represented by counsel. Understanding who the two counterparties are in this legal/business battle is important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the player reps are more applicable to National Basketball Players Association, and they didnt receive much coverage during the lockout. While some more details in the lockout article might save the need to click on the NBPA link, is this major enough for a GA (as opposed to an FA)?—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that the LEAD adequately summarizes the article. Some sections of the article are not summarized in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the outside impact the only point not summarized? I will add that shortly.—Chris!c/t 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added something. Is that okay? I didn't add the impact on the Olympic to the lead since the lockout was resolved way before anything could happen.—Chris!c/t 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the deal was "51.2% of BRI in 2011–12, with a 49-to-51 band in subsequent years." which is essentially or close to 50-50. I think the number is close enough for the summary.—Chris!c/t 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see "51.2% of BRI in 2011–12, with a 49-to-51 band in subsequent years".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the change I made sufficient? That whole sentence is too long to fit into the paragraph.—Chris!c/t 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Done—Chris!c/t 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Initial months
  • "The lockout was officially started by the owners on July 1, 2011" needs a clarification. State that this means players no longer had access to training facilities, coaches, support staff and pay was discontinued or some such.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Chris!c/t 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 4 district courts in NY. Source never specifies which one.—Chris!c/t 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellations
Not sure. Sources don't mention that.—Chris!c/t 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fisher, as union president, is not empowered to make unilateral decisions for the union." belongs above with who's who?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems random, if I put this somewhere else.—Chris!c/t 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article covers all aspects comprehensively and is not too long. Anyway I tried to trim out repetitive details.—Chris!c/t 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: Can you provide specifics on what you would like improved to make it less of a "snoozer"?—Bagumba (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it meets WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Settlement
Fixed—Chris!c/t 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see comment above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
  • "The cancellation of each month of the season cost the players around $350 million in lost pay." You will have the reader scratching his head trying to figure out how many months the strike lasted. You should either state how long it to before it ended above or just use totals here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear IMO. The $350 million lost is for each month cancelled. The lockout lasted 2 months so players as a whole lost around $700 million. Should the length of the lockout still be stated?—Chris!c/t 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've update the amount lost with a source from after the settlement. The original estimates were before the lockout ended, before the revised schedule that made up some lost games.—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they could not get back the money they could have earned from the canceled games" How about "they were unable to recover lost wages that resulted from cancelled games."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed—Chris!c/t 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Players' alternatives
Yes. Did we miss anyone?—Chris!c/t 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if it was selected all-stars or all-stars from the prior year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other alternatives
  • What types of players played in some of the leagues in the first paragraph?
All types. From Kevin Durant to Gary Neal.—Chris!c/t 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source this and add it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added something.—Chris!c/t 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US did play. They just didn't send big time NBA players.—Chris!c/t 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't the strike make the big time players available.?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has nothing to do with the lockout. US just doesn't send top players to this game. See Basketball at the 2007 Pan American Games. I don't know why.—Chris!c/t 21:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics
  • Help the reader understand the implication of not playing. Is it just that the player can not help his team qualify or does it effect his ability to play in the Olympics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraph clearly describes the implication. If the lockout has continued, NBA wouldn't cover the cost of insuring players against injuries and each national federations must pay that cost if they want to send NBA players to the Olympics. Some poorer national federations may not be able to pay, and would not send their NBA players.—Chris!c/t 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it is clear that if a player can not help his team qualify, he can still represent his team in the Olympics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a team can't qualify, then the team can't play in the Olympics. I am not sure what you are asking. If poorer national federations can't pay insurance to send NBA players, they are forced to send non-NBA players to compete, which could obviously impact the quality of the competition. I don't think most players from poorer nations would jeopardize their NBA career to play in the Olympics, especially if no one pays to insure against the risk (they probably can't afford to pay for it themselves either) —Chris!c/t 21:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rescheduled season
  • "The NBA revised the schedule to play two preseason games and a 66-game regular season schedule per team" rather than the standard X preseason and 82-game ...
Fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reshuffled some sentences to improve.—Chris!c/t 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that is left is the issue of whether the WP:LEAD adequately summarizes the article. I don't think it summarizes the outside impact and rescheduled season issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The lead serves as a summary of the article's most important aspects and I think it serves that purpose. The potential impact on the Olympic isn't very important in the grand scheme of things since the lockout was resolved way before anything could happen to it. The potential impact of the lockout on NHL and college basketball is merely speculation and is not important at all IMO. The main point of the rescheduled season is that it went from 82 to 66 games and it is covered already. If you disagree, then please tell me specifically what you wish to add. Then we can go from there.—Chris!c/t 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To provide an outside comment, I read through the lead and didn't have a problem with it. Wizardman 14:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I will pass the article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_NBA_lockout/GA1&oldid=1139991374"