Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tim Duncan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Tim Duncan

[edit]

A very solid GA about the four-time NBA basketball champion and triple NBA Finals Most Valuable Player, copyedited and cleaned up multiple times. I feel it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria, or at least will do after polish by experienced editors. Duncan is also already in this thirties, so stability will be not a big issue. I was also waiting for the peer review, but unfortunately there is quite a backlog at the moment, so no feedback. —Onomatopoeia 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom. —Onomatopoeia 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; together with Onomatopoeia and several editors from the NBA Wikiproject we have edited this article over a long period of time, and we'd be willing to address any concerns raised here by others. Chensiyuan 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: article is complete and objective. Manderiko 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very thorough article on Tim Duncan. If there is one minor thing that could be worked on, it would be to expand the "other interests" section since it's a little stubby. RyguyMN 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the section used to be a little longer but I thought the other information bordered on "trivial", so they were taken out. But I would see if anything of worth can be added, thanks. Chensiyuan 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Very well done and thorough article! Good work to all who worked on it. FamicomJL 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - must've read my mind, didn't even mention the other changes :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's well-written and clear. The sections are perfect. This article would make a great FAC. Basketball fan24111 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have a little issue with this line "Still, the power forward's main drawback in his game remains his inconsistent free throw shooting, with a career average of less than 70%.", I personally wouldn't call shooting 68% from the free throw line inconsistent for a big man, I feel 'average' would be a more acurate description of it since several centers and as in this case strong forwards have terrible accuaracy from the line (a certain center comes to mind here). Besides this the article is very comprehensible and significantly well written. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)  Done Your point about the FT shootnig is taken and implemented. Chensiyuan 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written, extremely cited, and easy to understand (as a non-basketball fan). Also, TonytheTiger, PLEASE stop with your one-man crusade to fill every sports bio with box scores; you've done this with prior sports FACs. Chris Young's article is loaded with box scores, it is possible for an article to be OVERcited. You're the only one who thinks box scores are necessary for FA status, and as many sports bios are FA-quality without box scores, you've been proven wrong. Kindly stop, it just makes for contentious and unnecessary debate. Anthony Hit me up... 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Of the half dozen FACs I have suggested adding Box scores to, only Martin Broduer (the 1st one) got through without the simple additions I requested. Anyone who thinks the article would not be improved with a box score of a quadruple double just miss is free to say so. Anyone who thinks any other game I am requesting a simple box score for is free to say that the box score would not improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Well written and documents Duncan's life and career very well, just needs polishing as errors are mentioned here.SabarCont 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The prose could use some work. Here are a few examples of less-than-professional writing:

:*Having lost his mother – who served as a huge inspiration to his life – to breast cancer, he acts as an ambassador against the disease. The parenthetical phrase in this sentence comes at an awkward point. Try reading the sentence out loud.

    •  Done First, thank you for your comments and follow-up even as we respond. I've tried making the sentence less awkward -- how does the new phrasing sound (see last lines of lead). Chensiyuan 13:08, 20 August 2007

(UTC)

  • With a double double career average, he is one of the most consistent players in the NBA, having been selected in all ten years of his professional career for both the All-NBA and All-Defensive teams and for being a perennial Most Valuable Player and Defensive Player of the Year candidate. Read this sentence carefully. We're saying that Duncan has been "selected...for being a perennial Most Valuable Player candidate...". That's messy. Reword and organize things a little bit better.
    • I agree with all your comments below save for this one. I don't see the confusion arising. Chensiyuan 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not that the meaning was unclear; the phrasing is just clunky. However, the problem is somewhat difficult for me to put into words, so I tried to fix it myself. Zagalejo 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
***Later in that section, we have this sentence: As one of the league's best interior defenders, he ranks constantly as one of the top scorers, rebounders and shotblockers in the league. The way this sentence is structured, you'd think Duncan's scoring is directly related to his interior defense. Zagalejo 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his career, the two-time MVP (2002, 2003), four-time NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and three-time NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005) Duncan has collected a number of individual and team honours. This sentence seems silly to me. Aren't the MVP awards and championships "individual and team honours" themselves? If the "Honors" section is a summary of his awards anyway, why frontload the first sentence like that? (And shouldn't "honours" be honors, to be consistent with the section header?)
  • The Spurs captain has also stated that he chose #21 for his jersey to honor his brother-in-law's college number, since he was the main inspiration for him to play basketball... This isn't so much of a prose concern as a request for more info. Who was Duncan's brother-in-law? Why isn't he mentioned in "Early life" if he was Duncan's inspiration to play basketball?
  • Some general advice: watch out for informal phrases ("big men"), and make sure that non-hoops fans can understand all of the basketball terminology. (For example, we introduce the term "low post moves" in the "Wake Forest University" section without clearly explaining what that means.) Zagalejo 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Uh, I see no reason for this to be a requirement. As long as it is a fair review of the article, I see no reason to include this information as long as there is no conflict of interest. Just because you are a member of a Wikiproject, it doesn't mean you have to flag yourself as such. Remember, assume good faith, unless otherwise given reason not to... — BQZip01 — talk 02:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard procedure. How can we tell if it is a fair review or that there is no conflict of interest. Its good faith to declare that you are a project member. Ceoil 10:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (NBA Wikiprokect member) The content of the article is very solid. However, I think there can be some improvement to the writing. Some of it suggests alot of POV and uses unencyclopedic tones. Examples:
    • 1 - Dominated his opposition with an uncanny array of moves.  Done removed/rephrased.
    • 2 - Played smothering defense.  Done removed.
    • 3 - The Spurs were smarting / were still reeling  Done removed/rephrased.
    • 4 - The Spurs disposed of the Timberwolves  Done word change.
    • 5 - Duncan and his Spurs sought revenge  Done removed/rephrased.
    • 6 - etc...
    • Note:
      • Also, I've never heard Tim Duncan being called Merlin during an NBA game or published in an article. I think that's an example of fancruft, and seems a bit trivial. Overall, it's a solid article, just needs to be combed over to ensure the language and tone remains encyclopedic. Zodiiak 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - I think the article lacks comprehensiveness and in some places is a bit POV
  • In many of the comments about the playing style and skill, pundit analysis is taken as a fact. Please make sure that all of these are noted as general opinion, rather than fact. Secondly, "proven by the fact that his playoff career averages are even higher than his regular-season stats" - I do not think stats in sport can be taken as "proof" of superiority etc.
  • I presume you are taking issue with proof of clutch play. My view is this: in playoffs, the standard of games are by and large higher, since the teams with the best records qualify for the playoffs. Playoffs are also a measure of a player's big match occasion, or in American terms, "clutch" performance. I think it's a fair and reasonable inference that a person who constantly records higher stats during playoffs (while not playing many more minutes per game), has got an extra dimension about his play. One of those dimenstions is clutch play. Chensiyuan 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NBA legend" - POV. There are quite a few instances of things like this from my experience reading basketball articles.
  • There are probably other instances of things which are metaphorical and not actual. Here are a few exmaples.
  • "long string of painful post-season losses" not in the source given and also rather POV. "the Spurs were considered a notable threat in the NBA. Now with both an experienced center in Robinson and the number one pick in Duncan, the Spurs featured one of the best frontcourts in the NBA. The Duncan and Robinson duo became known as the "Twin Towers" - every source in this para is raw stats. Where did you get all this qualitative info from. Article is unsourced in places
 Done, got rid of that sentence —Onomatopoeia 12:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness holes
  • If this guy was the first player in the draft, there would have been quite a media circus about him. Why did SAS want him so badly, what was their rationale in picking him. Contract negotiations? What is his contract, when was it renewed and so forth? IF he is an MVP he should have many contract offers from other teams. This needs to be discussed.
  • I would have thought that his performances in college set the context as to why he was coveted during the draft. Regarding contractual details, generally they are not disclosed per team policy although sites like basketball-reference.com offer figures -- but they remain guesses in my opinion. More importantly, as far as I know, in many good sports articles, details on the player's contract are seldom discussed, unless the wages are truly exceptional. Finally, regarding rival bids for his services -- I've tried searching for such details but had no luck. Unless somebody here says there have been meaningful speculation over his future at previous points of his career, this could be chimerical. Chensiyuan 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very statistical type of an article. There is roughly a para for each season, which consists of season's average, and the season's team results in the playoffs and the votes that he got for awards. If Duncan is always in the All Star team and is a multiple MVP, then we expect some brilliant and memorable performances in certain matches that will be spoken of over and over. I see no such matches here. It would be hard to fathom a multiple MVP with no stylish performances or match winning performances in important games and so forth. why are their no critical performances
  • I agree with most of your comments, but I should note that Duncan hasn't really had many "stylish" performances. The average NBA fan probably couldn't describe any specific Duncan games. Duncan is efficient and consistent, but he's not flashy, and he shows very little emotion on the court. His playing style doesn't lend itself to dramatic descriptions. Zagalejo 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: Duncan has been a crucial part of his team's success, but you'd still end up describing his greatest games in terms of statistics. Unlike Michael Jordan, who has a long list of acrobatic moves and game-winning jumpers, Duncan gets most of his points with methodical moves close to the basket. Zagalejo 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True he might not be stylish, but he will still have some games where he was more influential than others. Especially in the finals. Surely there must be instances of important games where he scored 30+ points etc or, when his team was down at the last breakk and he scored 10-15 points in a big burst. Like any game defining performances. Atm, the reader will think that he played aexactly the same way in each match (judging by the article). What about suspensions? Did he ever get any? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captaincy. Should be some discussion of leadership skills surely? You also note in the US national team section that he "led" the team. Do you mean captaincy or just being the main player. If he was captain this need to be explicirt.
  • In general, 36k is not so big for a contemporary player who is regarded as one of the best of his generation. There is plenty of room for general expansion. Surely there is a book about him?

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right in that more information could be added about him. But that can be said of any given article. It's a question of relevance and more importantly, value-addedness isn't it. My view is that as it stands, his basketball career is well-covered. His transactional history is almost non-existent, and as said he's not a "memorable game" kind of player but that's exactly what makes him stand out -- substance over style, success over style. Off the court, he's not the sort of flamboyant star where there's much to talk about, except maybe his philanthropy, which is covered. Chensiyuan 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Neutral This article is poorly written and incomplete. I only got through his college career. I expect my complaints on the early portion are indicative of the entire article. The article should visit WP:PR, and WP:BIOPR before returning to WP:FAC. Come back after completing a WP:PR visit. However, here are the beginnings of my objection.

The 2nd paragraph of the lead is poorly written stylistically.
“His strong performances for the college team attracted the attention of basketball scouts.” Is so big of an understatement and misstatement that it might be misleading. Duncan’s four performance at the college level which culminated in him being Player of the Year attracted attention or something like it would be better.
“He soon earned the nickname "The Big Fundamental", due to his use of basic and seemingly unspectacular basketball moves to great effect.” I am a pretty big sports fan and have never heard of this nickname. I don’t think it is important enough to be in the 2 paragraph summary.
I think on this point I'm very certain most people would disagree with you -- that is his most common nickname. Chensiyuan 06:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I'll back down on this point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Among others usually refers to persons. Here you mean Among other accomplishments or Among his many accomplishments or something like it.
between 1995 to 1997 is ungrammatical.  Done Chensiyuan 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneThe third paragraph of the Wake Forest section is a wreck making progress. Furthermore, it does not tell me how Wake finished in the NCAA tournament, ACC tournament or ACC regular season with Duncan. Basketball is a team sport. Please address this concern.
I think you could more easily summarize Duncan's college career in a wikitable with the following columns: NCAA Record, ACC record, ACC Tournament Finish (seed), NCAA Tournament Round loss (seed, Opposing team), Official Awards. If a wikitable is not desirable please provide the info textually. The way it is layed out in 1994 you can not tell they were the 5 seed and lost in the 2nd round to 4 seed Kansas, for example. I am sure Kansas was lead by a future NBA draftee. For his Junior season provide a link to the Brevin Knight game. This should get you on the right track.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Duncan must hold numerous ACC and Wake Forest records. I don’t see any. Is it possible to find any. This objection is not so strong however, since he placed high among NCAA in many important stats.
 Done —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Duncan only won ACC tournaments and got some Sweet Sixteen bids, Wake is not a traditional ACC power and this is very good for their program. I think talking about the ACC championships should be more impressive. I think you should be able to say his team defeated UNC teams led by X, & Y and Duke teams led by X, & Y for given years for example. It will add some flavor. Currently the Wake Forest section is 5300 words and I am sure it can be filled out in less than 7500 words. Also the Sophomore season paragraph seems slapped together. Please copy edit it and split the paragraph accordingly. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some mention of his rarity for his era as a four year collegian. He could have come out early and gotten big bucks. Many think he is exemplary for polishing of his skills before coming out and attribute his success to this decision. His article is incomplete without mention of this dimension.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, at least why he gave up millions by not entering the NBA early. However, the college section needs some rework. —Onomatopoeia 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, College section is fleshed out now. —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Peer review for further instructions. I have also requested an automated peer review which should be forthcoming in the peer review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is one of the few athlete bios that fails to mention his biggest single game performances. All of his big pro games can be cited with box scores and/recaps because he is an internet era star. Some of his big games should be mentioned. I know from working on Chris Young (pitcher) that college games are available back to about 1995 making Duncans Junior and Senior season big game box scores citable. Please mention his biggest games if you can find them. The talk page mentions one big game.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the close Quad double with a box score.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see all important games cited with box scores or recaps and most are. However, 1998 NBA Playoffs game 2 against the Suns needs a box score/recap as does the 2002 NBA Playoffs game 5 against the Lakers. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Onomatopoeia 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I'm not familiar with much US basketball so I can't comment on comprehensiveness but I don't feel the prose is too bad. There are a couple of minor tweaks and the tone is a little glowing in places but I'll highlight what I can see. I thin kyuo're nearly over the line though :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Duncan, current captain of the Spurs, is one of the most successful players of his generation. -I think this sentence is probably unnecessary. Try tacking on "Current captain of the spurs" onto the next sentence somehow and let the achievements speak for themselves maybe. (not a strong criticism though and could be left as is) - alternately - move the bit about 4 championships up to here, which is better than vague sentence "most successful"

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In school, Duncan was a bright pupil, and soon dreamt of becoming an Olympic-level swimmer - flip to "Duncan was a bright pupil in school, (one fewer comma/clause) and soon dreamt of becoming an Olympic-level swimmer (redundant)
 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:However, Duncan's dreams.. - drop "However"

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:drop 'mortal' in next para - who has a non-mortal fear of sharks?

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally only looking for a way to cope with his pain - drop "only" - redundant
 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Overall, Duncan led Wake Forest to a 97–31 win-loss record, finished his college career as the leading shot blocker in NCAA history, and is one of only ten players with mor.. - drop "overall" and change first comma to "and". Trn 2nd comma into semicolon.

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really my area of expertises so I can't really show support (not yet anyway). But here are a few minor things I noticed. Doesn't say which country he is from (I'm assuming it's the USA).

"The power forward Duncan a four-time NBA champion and a three-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player and the current captain of the Spurs ." should be a comma or "is" after "Duncan", should be a comma instead of the first "and" and there is a space before the full stop.

"won the NBA Most Valuable Player Award twice" maybe "won two NBA Most Valuable Player Award" would be better. Particularly since that's how the rest of the sentance is set out. "seemingly unspectacular basketball moves to great effect" POV

"degree before becomign a professional athlete." becoming miss-spelt

Huge for the Spurs maybe. But did it really effect Duncan? Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) "Duncan continued his strong play." "strong play" doesn't sound right to me.[reply]

"and finally defeated the New York Knicks 4–1 in the Finals" why finally?

"Nonetheless, Duncan rebounded in the next season. With strong regular-season averages of 22.2 points" not sure why there is a full stop after "season".

"Duncan became even better in the 2001-02 season" POV

"saw Duncan being named NBA MVP" "being" is redundant here

  • Do you really need to keep listing his points, rebounds, assists and blocks per game. They're only numbers after all and are listed in his stats anyway.
    • Statistics are an important measure of his performance and are a non-pov way to evaluate performance.SabarCont
      • But as someone who doesn't know much about the sport they mean nothing to me. Phares like "lead the league in..." and "his PPG went up by..." would give a better perspective of how good a season it was. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You raise a legitimate point, but it's quite a dilemma too. Duncan has never really led the league in anything (as in first), he's just constantly amongst the top in points, rebounds and blocks, and his play is kept simple. I know it may mean nothing to a non-bball fan. But if I could give a soccer analogy -- since you're more familiar with that sport -- how else can I try to drive home a point that someone like Paul Scholes is a great player but to say he scores 10+ goals a season, has a high pass-completion rate, has a good number of assists, even though he has never led in any of these categories? The point is, mentioning these statistics do give a slight clue as to the player's quality. It doesn't give a great picture, but I hope you understand the dilemma I'm talking about. Chensiyuan 14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "led the league" was just an example I wasn't suggesting you use that exsact phares. Say something like "was Xth in the league". Also I have no problem with the use of stats to show how good a seson it was, but the raw stats on there own are not very helpful. For example "Finshed 4th of 10 with a total of 30" is more helpful than "finshed with a total 30" Buc 09:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following Derek Fisher's buzzer beater shot in the crucial Game 5" not really anything to do with Duncan

"was instrumental in Game 7" POV

  • "outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki by 32.2–27.1 points" why is he a rival? and what is the significance to him scoring more pionts than him?
    • They play the same position and man-to-man defense causes players to usually end up guarding their counterpart. Points is a measure of performance (and hence the premise that Duncan is the best at his position), although I would prefer PER as a statistic.SabarCont 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Spurs ended up losing Game 7 in overtime" you've already mentioned that it went to OT and what was the score?

Not much about the 2006-07 seson considering they won the championship.

"International career" section seems a bit short, has he played for U.S at any other times other than the 2004 Olympics? How did he perform in the individual games?

"Player profile" section maybe a better title would be "Style of play"

NBA statistics don't seem to have a ref.

Not sure about the EA Sports NBA Live Cover Athletes template but that's not really to do with the article.

Ref from nba.com/history could just say nba.com really.

Ref #27 and #33 not dated

Was #43 just T.V Broadcast?

Looks good though, as someone who knows very little about the sport I found it easy to follow. Buc 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Does not meet the brilliant, compelling prose criteria for FA, and is not even that well written. A few examples:
    • The second sentence of the first paragraph (The 6'11", 260-pound[2] power forward Duncan a four-time NBA champion and a three-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player and the current captain of the Spurs .) lacks a verb, needs at least one comma, and has a space before the period.
    • The last sentence in the third paragraph (Having lost his mother to breast cancer at a young age, Duncan and his wife act as ambassadors against the disease.[4]) makes little sense - have you ever heard of an ambassador against something? Aren't they ambassadors for breast cancer awareness, prevention, and research?
      • Yes I have, see my comment above. I can find more examples if you want. Chensiyuan 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the strikthrough as this is not changed and is still awkward - I read the ref and it makes no mention of Duncan's wife joining him in his charity work, not does it use the word ambassador, not does it specifcally say he is against breast cancer (mentions cancer once, also a lot of work with chuldren's charities). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (i) the ref does say his wife is the vice-president of the Tim Duncan Foundation, (ii) as far as I can tell describing him as an ambassador is not wrong given what he's done, (iii) you are right about no specific mention of breast cancer, I'd try to fix that. Chensiyuan 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I Googled "Ambassador against" and found several examples, although almost all seem to be appointed by a government or the United Nations (as were your examples). It was not a phrase with which I was familiar and apologize I did not know of it. The ref cited still does not say he (or his wife) are ambassadors, nor could I find any online sources independent of this article that called him and his wife ambassadors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the whole article, especially anything mentioned in a header or subheader, but his International career (Olympics) is not mentioned in the lead.
    • From the Early life subsection Because of his fear of sharks, he soon lost enthusiasm for his sport, and received a major emotional blow when his mother Ione was diagnosed with breast cancer and died one day before his 14th birthday.[5] This makes it sound as if his fear of sharks had something to do with his mother's breast cancer diagnosis, and it makes it sound as if his mother was diagnosed and died on the same day, right before his birthday. I also find many of the references have problems.
    • His own website (slamduncan.com) is cited eight times (refs 1 and 6) but a subject's own website does not meet WP:RS.
      •  Done WP:RS prefaces by saying the rules are not set in stone and common sense should be applied. Re: ref 1, it is used simply to show where he was born. It is acceptable. Re ref 6, they are used to back up claims of his own story, not meant to push opinions etc. E.g., him making promises to his mother. Chensiyuan 12:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, many links are broken. For example, in the Wake Forest subsection, the first sentence (At Wake Forest, Duncan overcame early transition problems and established himself as one of the top college players of his generation.) is unsourced (and does not even give the years he was at Wake Forest). The next sentence is based on an adidas press release - since adidas is paying Mr. Duncan a lot of money, they might not be the most unbiased source to quote. The third sentence ref (to usabasketball.com) is broken.
    • Almost all of the references are online - there is a lot of magazine (Sports Illustrated, etc.) and newspaper coverage of the NBA and a quick look at amazon.com shows over a dozen books on him. Get thee to a library ;-)
      • I don't deny that a variety of sources can be helpful, but consider somebody like me who lives in Asia and has no money in the bank account. I think using only onlines sources per se should not be a fault; it's a question of whether the websites are reliable and objective. Let's face it, many things in paper form are transposed on webform. Moreover, I don't really see a WP rule stating the use of only online sources should render an article an instant FAC failure. Chensiyuan 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the issue here is WP:NPOV. There is no representation of almost any of the print sources in the article. Over a dozen books and major magazines are not cited, just because they are not online. Can't any of your collaborators go to a library that has at least some of these books and mags? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if any of them could obtain materials, they would. I speak only for myself. Regarding your point on NPOV, well a variety of sources would be very necessary if this article makes a lot of POV claims, which I think it does not. Most of the content is borne from the statistics. Another chunk is on his family/personal life and causes. If indeed the issue is objectivity, well statistics and facts of a person's life are pretty objective. Perhaps you can give an e.g. of something in this article which would be better if backed by books and mags, thanks. Chensiyuan 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well the books or magazines could be used to fix the blank reference (currently #5), or to replace the broken usabasketball.com refs (the links still do not work, though here you could also use the Wayback Machine), or to replace much of the personal biography data taken from the subject's own website (slamduncan.com) with something less potentially biased. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the usabasketball ref works now... Chensiyuan 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 5 is no longer blank, i think it got deleted accidentally, thanks. Chensiyuan 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it seems like a fairly short article and the sentence structure is often choppy. A good start, but not FA yet. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Comment: I have withdrawn my oppose (above) as the specific points I raised have been addressed, but I cannot support this FAC with no books and very few print refs cited, especially when we know there are many biographies of Tim Duncan out there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your legitimate comments, I'll try to get SOME print media. The problem is that I live in Germany, and neither in libraries nor newspaper stands there is ANYTHING with Tim Duncan; basketball is deeply unpopular here. Borrowing a book is not an option with me (yes, I went through several big libraries; all they got is Michael Jordan) and if I try to order a book about Tim Duncan NOW online, it will be only available in 2-3 weeks from now AND it is expensive for me. If someone living in the U.S. could help, super, if not, I'll try to dig up something elsewhere. —Onomatopoeia 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have lived in Germany and know the difficulties involved in getting American print resources there. Have you asked on the NBA WikiProject if anyone in the US can help? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, wonders exist! Got a book about TD and am in the midst of adding info. —Onomatopoeia 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]

Introducing a new section to facilitate discussion. And BTW, his "college" section has also been rewritten. —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my pionts again since it's a bit of a mess up there.

  • shouldn't be ref in lead. Everything in the lead should be mentioned later.
    • I believe this technically does not breach anything. Many FAs that make the mainpage have refs in the lead. Since a lead summarises the article, by way of logic a ref in the lead is at worst superflously pre-emptory.Chensiyuan 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe something in the "Early life" section about this Dave Odom guy's first impretions of him.
  • "Duncan's style of play was simple but effective, combining an array of low-post moves, mid-range bank shots and tough defense" maybe move this to "Player profile"
  • Very little about his 95 and 96 seasons.
  • "In contrast to Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant or LeBron James" But how do they relate to Duncan?
  • Is some other player's retirement really the best reason to start a new section?
    • Yes, David was one of the best centers of his era and a keystone to the defense the Spurs played, which they place first in their system of play. Replacing a 20/10 future hall of famer with a random guy off free agency or the draft without a lottery pick is pretty huge.
      • Huge for the Spurs maybe. But did it really effect Duncan?
  • "the Spurs were considered a notable threat in the NBA." needs ref.
    • Apart from it not really being a contentious point (the litmus test for ref IMO), the subsequent ref for "Twin Towers" corroborates the point of the Spurs being a threat. Chensiyuan 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although they beat the Phoenix Suns in the first round, they lost in the second round to the eventual Western Conference Champion Utah Jazz." I think "They beat the Phoenix Suns in the first round and then lost in the second round to the eventual Western Conference Champion Utah Jazz." would be better, also what were the scores in these games?
  • "swept the Los Angeles Lakers and the Portland Trail Blazers 4–0" remove "swept"
  • Do you really need to keep listing his points, rebounds, assists and blocks per game. They're only numbers after all and are listed in his stats anyway.
    • You raise a legitimate point, but it's quite a dilemma too. Duncan has never really led the league in anything (as in first), he's just constantly amongst the top in points, rebounds and blocks, and his play is kept simple. I know it may mean nothing to a non-bball fan. But if I could give a soccer analogy -- since you're more familiar with that sport -- how else can I try to drive home a point that someone like Paul Scholes is a great player but to say he scores 10+ goals a season, has a high pass-completion rate, has a good number of assists, even though he has never led in any of these categories? The point is, mentioning these statistics do give a slight clue as to the player's quality. It doesn't give a great picture, but I hope you understand the dilemma I'm talking about.
      • "led the league" was just an example I wasn't suggesting you use that exact phares. Say something like "was Xth in the league". Also I have no problem with the use of stats to show how good a seson it was, but the raw stats on there own are not very helpful. For example "Finshed 4th of 10 with a total of 30" is more helpful than "finshed with a total 30"
  • "following Derek Fisher's buzzer beater shot in the crucial Game 5" not really anything to do with Duncan
  • "outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki by 32.2–27.1 points" why is he a rival? and what is the significance to him scoring more pionts than him?
    • They play the same position and man-to-man defense causes players to usually end up guarding their counterpart. Points is a measure of performance (and hence the premise that Duncan is the best at his position), although I would prefer PER as a statistic.
      • Ok well you need to explain this.
        • That they play the same position does not require explanation since it's established at the start Duncan is also a power forward; as for "rival", well it just means Nowitzki was his opponent in that game, as opposed to a team-mate. Chensiyuan 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important announcement

Hi there, I am happy to say that I just got hold of a copy of Slam Duncan by Kevin Kiernan, a Tim Duncan bio which perfectly meets WP:RS. I'll add info to the TD article as I read through this book. —Onomatopoeia 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tim_Duncan&oldid=1152503390"