Talk:Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- BigDom 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a pretty well written article, just have some improvements (mostly minor changes concerning the tense) ...

Lead

• I would change "the National Basketball Association's (NBA's)" to "the National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise"
• "Top Rank group would secure" ---> "Top Rank group secured"
• "purchase the Wolves" – you've used Timberwolves before this and everywhere else in the article, so I'd change this to "purchase the Timberwolves"
• "Taylor would purchase and keep the team" ---> "Taylor purchased the franchise and kept the team"

Relocation speculation

• The first time the Target Center is mentioned, it would help to explain that this is the team's home arena
• "Timberwolves ownership" ---> "The Timberwolves ownership"
• "New Orleans would emerge" ---> "New Orleans emerged"
• "New Orleans would later reemerge" ---> "New Orleans later reemerged"

Move to New Orleans

• Since the team never moved to New Orleans, maybe this section would be better named "Proposed move to New Orleans"
• "Top Rank was successful purchasing" ---> "Top Rank successfully purchased"
• The rest of the section is written OK, but I think the last two paragraphs should be merged together.

Remaining in Minneapolis

• "Glen Taylor would head a group" ---> "Glen Taylor later headed a group"
• "the Timberwolves would make their first trip" ---> "the Timberwolves made their first trip"

Other general comments

• The picture needs alt text
• Throughout the article, sometimes the dates include a year (e.g. "February 11, 1994" and "June 15, 1995") but others don't. I realise that the dates are mostly from the same year, but it would be better to be consistent and add the missing years.

A pretty solid article, I'd be happy to pass this once the comments have been addressed. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you have any queries. Cheers, -- BigDom 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if anything else needs to be added, deleted or amended. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems to cover all the major aspects of a fairly small topic.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

All comments have been addressed and the article now meets the GA criteria, so I will happily pass this one. Please consider reviewing an article of your choosing. -- BigDom 05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)