Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boston Celtics/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 04:25, 3 February 2008.

Boston Celtics

 * previous FAC

Nominator:This article has gone through several additions and edits since its last nomination in November. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same reason as last FAC. The lead section is totally inadequate, the references are totally inadequate, and most of all there is horrible WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight: the section on the epic Russell years is pathetically short, the section on the Cowens years is too short as well, while the sections on the 1990s and especially the 2000s are given way too much space by comparison.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wasted Time R brings up a number of valid points. When people think of the Celtics, they either reminisce about the days of Bill Russell during the era of Auerbach or Larry Bird during the 1980s. There is too much emphasis on recent years. The lead needs to be developed, so that it serves as a standalone overview of the entire article. It fails to do this at the moment. Also, more sources need to be used. Stick to book references (I am sure there are many out there) for the older history, and authoritative sports news sites for more recent history. Please do not use sources like this, because they do not meet our policy on reliable sources (note that Armchairgm is a wiki, so using this as a reference is a definite no-no). Toronto Raptors is FA. I suggest you use this to model the Boston Celtics article. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * The lead needs extending as per WP:LEAD
 * There are thousands of changes needed as per WP:MOS, particularly numbers (incl. ordinals) and dashes.
 * Not enough references
 * I'd get rid of the season-by-season record list and instead create a separate article. Peanut4 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Good Article, good amount of references. Warrior4321talkContribs 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose short lead, lacks references (and the ones there are badly formatted), you don't need the images on the retired numbers... it's detailed, but doesn't have the quality of the NBA team FA. Make a huge cleanup, see if it passes the GA and then try the FA again. igordebraga ≠ 14:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It's GA, it's at the level of the Raptors (FA), and it's very well referenced. Basketball one ten  18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The pre-2007 history section is completely unreferenced. That itself is about half the article! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.