Wikipedia:Peer review/Portland Trail Blazers/archive2

Portland Trail Blazers[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Portland Trail Blazers/archive1

I need to see how the article can be improved to GA status, and ultimately FA status. I will fix any nuisances that are mentioned here. The last peer review was almost no good (as it was reviewed by a bot). The Chronic 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32[edit]

Random thoughts, as I come across them.

Problems with informal language:
- In lead: "laced up sneakers" very informal.
- In History section: "did not achieve much success" exessive verbage. Try "were unsuccessful"
- Same section: "reverse the team's fortunes in a dramatic way" informal, uses peacock words
- Section title: "Plunge to the lottery": rather jargony. Non-NBA fans have NO idea what this means.
- Probably lots of other language issues. I am NOT a good copy editor. Consider seeking the help of the league of copy editors for help with this.
Organization issues:
- summary style issues. When you split a section into a new article, there is no need for the section to remain as long as the daughter article. For example, the "History" section is WAY too long and excessively detailed in places. Consider paring it down to the highlights, and move the details to the daughter article. Think about "lead" sized (or maybe slightly larger). I would think you could pare the history section down to like 3-5 paragraphs total. If its long enough to have subsections, its too long in this case.
- The section on transactions also has the same problem. Consider reducing ALL sections on players down to a single section. "Notable players" and spliting info to other articles. Under notable players, it is probably OK to significantly limit this to players of real distinction (such as Hall of Famers or Top 50 all-time players, like Pippin). We don't need every single draft pick the team has ever made here.
- This article should be the kind of article where someone who knows next-to-nothing about the Blazers would get a general overview of the team. The daughter articles (like a Players article, and a Seasons article and the like) would be the place to get more details. Consider the following organizational scheme:
  - Name and branding (condense the Blazermania stuff into here)
  - History (condense some of the "and the media" stuff into here too...)
  - Players
    - Notable past players (keep it about MAJOR players, such as retired numbers, hall-of-famers, and Top 50s (like Pippen)
    - Current players
  - Coaching staff
  - Front office
  - Media personel (keep on the personalities, like radio and TV play-by-play etc.)
  - Team and league records (include team record holders, league record holders, championships won, overall and playoff records, etc.)
  - Venue
- Consider the following "Daughter" articles to take up the details from this one. Some of these probably already exist:
  - History article
  - Players and coaches article (include sections on draft picks, all stars, major trades, retired numbers etc.)
  - Seasons article (several NFL teams have featured seasons articles... try Chicago Bears seasons for a great example)

That should give you enough to work on. If you need any more help, drop a line on my talk page! Always glad to help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]