Talk:Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans/GA1

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

Reviewer: -- Big  Dom  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, -- Big  Dom  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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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. -- Big  Dom  05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)