Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boston Celtics/archive1

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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

---

Boston Celtics

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has all the viable information for the proper comprehension of the history and present of the Boston Celtics. I also think that if the Toronto Raptors article received the featured article status, the Boston Celtics article should also receive it, as the quality is at least at the level of the Tornonto Raptors article. | 8-Hype (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Just by scanning it I can tell it needs a lot more refs and the lead expanding. Buc (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is far from FA:
  • Many sections are unreferenced.
  • Lead section is too short.
  • The History section makes me want to sleep.
  • The article is not comprehensive. It needs a Supporters section, a Stadium section and a section about the Reserves/Ladies teams if there are any. Also if the club is very famous there should be a "In popular culture section".
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't no reserves/ladies in american sports, just the minors in baseball, and I don't think a in pop culture or supporters section is needed, the other American sports teams FAs doesn't have it, but everything else I agree with Kaypoh, I could do whole paragraphs for what is wrong in the article, but too lazy. Anyways Oppose for me This is a Secret ^account 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not even close. The lead section is totally inadequate, the references are totally inadequate, and most of all there is horrible WP:Recentism: the section on the epic Russell years is pathetically short, the section on the Cowens years is too short as well, while the sections on the 1990s and especially the 2000s are given way too much space by comparison. This article needs some editors who either saw Bill Russell play or know what he and the Celtics teams he played on (and later coached for as well) meant to basketball. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think that it is a very interesting article, and is worthy of being on the main page. It is extremely informative. I think that it details seasons and stars. Basketball110 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose More references needed. Also, references aren't according to Cite. Miranda 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.