Talk:Houston Rockets/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• article contains the following contractions: didn't, isn't

Copyright violations Tool

• I am seeing some overlay in phrases with https://web.archive.org/web/20011220024939/http://www.nba.com/rockets/history/history.html#6 - but they appear to be general phrases or wording that cannot be avoided so I think we're okay here.

Disambiguation links

• No issues detected Y

External links

• Two links come back as dead in the tool - marked in red
• 13 links come back as having issues in the tool - marked in blue

Fixed all those. igordebraga ≠ 04:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well Written

• Considering there is a whole article on the History of the Houston Rockets the detail given in the "franchise history" is simply too much, this should be a summary of the main article, not a repeat of 75%

• History page size (readable prose) 5734 words (33 Kb)
• Franchise history in the article (readable prose) 4803 words (28 Kb)
• So in other words 83% of the size of the "history" article - and that has a lead that repeats part of the contents. That is not a summary Looking at this I would expect this section to actually be a high level summary.

In fact the changes needed to this section is so great I am going to put the review on hold, if the section has been summarized in the next seven days I will pick up the review again. So @Igordebraga: please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Remove plenty more content from the section (believe me, it used to be worse...) in order to keep it summarized, with details on the main history article. igordebraga ≠ 16:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Here and anywhere else height/weight is indicated the article needs to also give the same measurements in metrics.
• "The Houston Rockets are an American" should be "Is", it's a singular team - not a cluster of rockets after all.
• "The Rockets did not finish a season with a winning record until the 1976–77 season" so they went to the playoffs in 1969 without a winning record? That is how I am reading this section.
  • Yes. Added the W-L record in the San Diego section to clarify.
• "award twice, and lead" does not need the comma
• "The recent acquisitions of franchise" please be more specific, "recent" is quickly outdated - so state the year.

1967–1971 San Diego Rockets

• "homaging" should be "paying homage to"
• "college players in the 1967" should be "college players from the 1967"
• "was then an NBA record for losses in a season" should be " was an NBA record for losses in a season at the time."
• "two seasons, and did not" does not need the comma

1971–1976 Improving in Houston with Murphy and Rudy-T

• "the Rockets 10th straight loss" - I assume this was the tenth season with a loss, not 10th game? please clarify
• "which shut the young Rockets down" too informal phrasing.
• " down the stretch of the regular season" again a little too informal and not encylopedic.

1976–1982 The Moses Malone era

• "led by former ABA star Julius Erving" the "former ABA star" is not necessary, the article is about the Rockets, not Erving.
• "was swept 2–0 against Atlanta" should be 'was swept 2–0 by Atlanta"
• What exactly is a "realignment"?
• "In the final round facing Larry Bird's Boston Celtics in the finals round, despite blowing a late lead in Game 1 and actually winning Game 2 at the legendary Boston Garden, the Rockets failed to capitalize on the early surprising success against the favored Celtics, and eventually lost in six games.[37]" - This is a massive run on sentence, please rephrase it and take out the word "legendary" as well as "surprising" as they're not neutral terms.

1984–1987 The Twin Towers era

• "good to a return to the playoffs" should be "good enough for a return to the playoffs"
• "sixth seeded" should be "sixth-seeded"
• What seed was Houston since losing to the sixth-seed was an "upset"?
• "six game" should be "six-game"
• "In the following season, where the Olajuwon and Sampson duo earned the nickname "Twin Towers",[45] Houston won the Midwest Division title with a 51–31 record, and in the playoffs the Rockets swept the Sacramento Kings, had a hard-fought six game series with Alex English's Denver Nuggets, and then faced defending champion Lakers, losing the first game but eventually managing to win the series - the only Western Playoffs defeat of the Showtime Lakers - to get to the franchise's second Finals appearance.[46]" - The entire season except the finals in one massive, long, run-on sentence. Please revise, no shame in using a period now and again ;-)
• "The NBA Finals had again the Rockets facing the Celtics" reword "The NBA finals once again matched the Rockets up against the Celtics" or words to that effect.
• "a contrast of Houston's young front" should be "a contrast to Houston's young front"
• "season on game 4" should be "season in game 4"
• "riding a Larry Bird triple-double on Game 6." no encyclopedic and I honestly do not know what that is.

1987–1992 Lean years

• "In the next five seasons, the Rockets were either eliminated in the first round of the playoffs[50][51][52] or from playoff contention, with Don Chaney replacing Fitch as head coach in 1988.[53]" seems to put two disparate ideas together, how about just break it into two?
• "had its best season during 1990–91" - I don't think "its" is correct, it's referring back to Chaney, who's not an "it"
• "outstanding numbers" can we put something factual in there instead of just vague praise? and if the team did not help how did he get "outstanding numbers"?
• "the 1991–92, with" should use the word "season"
• "While the Rockets did not make the playoffs,[57] in the next year" - not sure the connection with a "while" structure, I don't think the first had much to do with the second?

1993–1995 Clutch City championships

• "from a second round" should be "from the second round"?
• "Western contestants" - "Western division contestants"?
• "Knicks opened a 3-2 advantage, but managed to win the last two games" - this reads like the Knicks won 5-2, that's not true though.
• "Olajuwon was awarded the Finals MVP, after averaging 27 points, nine rebounds and four blocked shots a game, and after close to a quarter of a century associated with the Rockets, Rudy Tomjanovich finally won a championship ring as head coach." - focus, is this sentence about Olajuwon or Tomjanovich? why not just split them?

1995–2002 Post-Championship and rebuilding

• "featuring a brief comeback by Magic Johnson" - this seems like a side comment that's not really relevant for the Rockets' article and it does make the franchise history section still feel bloated and not like a shorter summary.
• ", which had the best regular season record." - again not really Rockets related
• "made another bold trade" - that's really a POV statement, they made a trade, let's not interpret it and state it as a fact.
• "finished a disappointing 28–54" - again "disappointing" is a judgement call, not neutral

2002–2004 Yao Ming arrives

• "However," cannot start a new section with "however" referring back to the previous section.
• "The Rockets missed the 2003 playoffs by one name" - sorry "by one name"?

2004–2009 Yao & McGrady duo

• "for the Western's 5 seed" - "good enough to become the Western Conference's fifth seed"
• "4 games to two" should be "four games to two"

Tried to fix those. igordebraga ≠ 04:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

2012–present The James Harden era; resurgence and decline

• "impact at the starting lineup" should be "impact as part of the starting lineup"
• "outstanding season", please choose a more neutral phrase.
• "The 2015-16 season had Kevin McHale fired" a season is not a person, it cannot fire someone.
• "in spate of trade rumors" you cannot be "in rumors" - you could say "surrounded by trade rumors"

Home arenas

• "Today the site is now Lakewood Church" should be "Today the site is the Lakewood Church"
• "seasons had Houston having" bad composition had and having - how about something like "seasons saw Houston having"
• "less than 12,000 spectators on both." replace with "less than 12,000 spectators each season"
• It is feeling a little redundant that the article keeps saying "set a record, beat it", "set a record, beat it" three times in a row.
• "These were overcome once James" - I am not sure "overcome" is the appropriate term, "were bested" or "exceeded"?

Uniforms and logos

• "The Rockets' first logo is of a rocket streaking" switches tenses in the paragraph, the entire section should be past tense when describing previosu logos.
• "Also worth noting is the use of the font Cooper Black on the player's names." - I am not actually sure that is worth noting, seems like a trival thing what sort of font they used.
• "1995 championship triumph" use the word "victory", neutral, factual
• "suggested to go with", how about "suggested that Houston should go with"
• What is "LCD-inspired livery"?
• "an stylized" should be "a stylized"
• "Red went back into being" - "Red once again became"
• "Rockets went back to their championship years" - well no did not travel in time.
• "Alternate silver sleeved uniform" should be "An alternate silver sleeved uniform"
• Also "An alternate red and gold sleeved"

Rivalries

• "Houston faced both Texas teams thrice, beating the Spurs on all occasions and losing twice to the Mavericks." when? in the first year? since the conference move? No time reference is given.
• "beat on both championship seasons" should be "beat in both championship seasons"

Sources/verifiable

• some sources lists it as "Basketball-Reference.com" and others list it as basketball-reference.com - chose one and make it consistent.
• Considering how often the "baskeball-references.com" site is used I sure hope it's a Reliable Source, right?
• some of the reference has a diffent date format such as "2013-07-01.", be consistent please.
• Season-by-season table is unsourced.
• Some of the "individual honors" appear to be unsourced, ex. the All-Star section.
• I honestly think the "statistics and records" coould just be the "See also" reference.
• "Current roster" is unsourced
  • The source is not put in a traditional way - as per all the team templates, there is a link reading "Roster" (just above "Last transaction").
    • I had not seen that, slightly different but the main point of the source is to verify it so this does work for verfification purposes. Excellent. MPJ-US  18:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• "Notable former players" is unsourced
• "Hall of famers" is unsourced

Broad in coverage

• Yes

Neutral

• Just a few issues listed under "well written"

Stable

• This is a challenge for any major sports franchise it's a target of a ton if IP edits with speculations and rumors and forget about it around draft time. they're all nuts and it does put a question mark around the stability of this article but I won't fail it for that right now.

Illustrated / Images

• Looks fine

Okay so the Franchise history has been shortened, I will now resume the review. MPJ-US  22:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Notes

• The "Coaches" section is like the complete table from the "list of Houston Rockets head coaches" - It looks like a content fork to me as it's identical information in both places.

• @Igordebraga: - that is the full extent of my review, I will allow you plenty of time to address it.  MPJ-US  21:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

See if everything is done now, specially since to see if the new\rewritten content is still up to up to standards. igordebraga ≠ 05:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

second round of comments

So on reading it again I just have a few comments. Overall I am pleased with the reductions in certain places and the focus in others.

• "good enough to a return" should be "good enough for a return"
• "qualify to the playoffs" should to "qualify for the playoffs"
• "their home court, and claimed" does not need the comma
• "6 inch" should be "6-inch"
• "a sharkmouth nose art" should be "sharkmouth nose art"

• @Igordebraga: - Not really a bunch of issues so should be pretty easy to fix. MPJ-US  23:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Done those too. igordebraga ≠ 04:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Igordebraga: - great work, passing it for GA.  MPJ-US  13:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)