Talk:Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game/GA1

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

Reviewer: Brunswick Dude (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Checked the sources and they are sufficiently supporting the article I would like to thank the article writer for this very well researched piece. I tried to move a couple of comas here and there, but the article is almost perfect! I'm going to promote, but first please revise a reference which is in dire need of a page! I will leave it open for a week, unless, of course, the correction is quicker. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * After some copy-editing, IMO the article meets the criteria.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I nommed this article because it seemed really good. However I did not work on it, so I do not know fine details like this. Googling carefully, I can say that the entire book is about this game, so providing page numbers is not really useful, unless it is 1-288. Would that be fine? Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but that would be not fine: it would be lazy editing and reviewing. I would rather delete the whole sentence and post something in the talk page to note to anyone that has the book to see if they can bring that reference and some more information on the book, in order to bring the article to FA: Better, leave that sentence here in this review, so that it never gets lost in archiving processes of the talk page. In my opinion the article is GA without that whole sentence. Please consider my suggestion so that I can promote.--Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hid the text with a comment for whoever encounters it, and will copy it here also. Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the book Wilt, 1962 (2005), sports journalist Gary M. Pomerantz uses the 100-point game as a metaphor, saying it proved that blacks could succeed in a world dominated by whites. In this book, Chamberlain acts as a symbol for Black America, and Imhoff is the pendant, standing for White America. 
 * That's an even more elegant solution, and thank you! Well good luck at FA. I think this is good to go: IMO it meets the GA standards. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)