Talk:Double-double/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Has been tagged with a globilise tag for a while now, but it also needs other work. It looks like a lot of articles have been merged into one article and it has made the whole thing a bit messy. There are a lot of tables which don't have a lot of explanatory prose.In fact what prose that is there seems to contradict the tables. While I would expect this to have a lot of information on the NBA it needs to have a more global coverage to be considered broad enough for a Good Article. There is also a massive overuse of bolding. AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the "merge" had already taken place at the time it was made GA. I think the article is broad enough for basic basketball terminology. However, I suspect the standalone term double is a Wikipedia-manufactured term to act as container for double-double, triple-double, etc.  I think the globalize tag was placed because most of the embedded lists are for the NBA or U.S. college basketball.  An argument could be made that league-specific lists should be spun off to standalone lists (WP:EXAMPLEFARM?)  Otherwise, commingling more leagues brings up the question of what is WP:DUE weight.  Nobody should question the NBA's inclusion because it's the preeminent basketball league in the world, but I don't know how it could be objectively balanced if more leagues are to be included. As for factual errors, can you enumerate them so people can address them?  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . Wilt Chamberlain holds the record for most career double-doubles, yet is not mentioned in the list at all. I guess that has something to do with the seemingly arbitrary starting point of 1983-4 season, but it just highlights a further problem (recentism). In fact over half the article is lists, which is also problematic (see Manual of Style/Embedded lists). Due weight in regards to what competitions to include needs to be taken into account and I am not looking for a perfect balance, but it should be plain to anyone that looks at the article that the current balance is out. Double-double and triple-double are almost exclusively about the NBA, they even name drop it in the first paragraphs which should be describing the concept. There is a strong mention of college basketball under triple double, which really just highlights how US centric the article is. Quadruple-double is the best balanced, but again is very list heavy. I think this needs a lot of work, and I am happy to keep it open if you are willing to take it up. There is no harm if it is delisted, it just loses the green spot. It can be nominated again when someone gets the time and motivation to do so. AIRcorn (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Chamberlain sentence is dubious, and a bit trivial (regular season and playoffs stats usually not combined), so I deleted it. I doubt I will be signing up to do the bulk of any changes necessary.  I was merely offering a different perspective on the concerns you raised.  Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Feel free to keep commenting. AIRcorn (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delisting per concerns raised above. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)