Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of highest scoring NBA games/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

List of highest scoring NBA games

 * Nominator(s): — Chris! c / t 02:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL requirement. This is my first nom in over 2 years. — Chris! c / t 02:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – Before continuing with a full review, I was curious as to where the scope of the list comes from. Is there a source that lists 15 games each for the regular season and playoffs? If not, I don't know where a logical starting point would come from. Who's to say that 15 is a better number of games to include than 20 or 25? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit that the 15 games cutoff point is somewhat arbitrary. When I wrote this, I searched the Internet for a similar list that list this info. I can't really found one. The closest one is this, but it only lists several games. I can see that this list could fail 3a because there is really no defined scope. If this is the reason for a quick fail. I can understand. — Chris! c / t 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just use a common number like top-10? At any rate, there is coverage of the list in books, though you might need to go offline to get the full content. Also, sources like these can be used to establish WP:LISTN for the topic of highest scoring games.—Bagumba (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious: how many entries are in the reference Official NBA Guide 2006-07 that was used.?—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 10. And I use the BR search tool to verify the list as well.— Chris! c / t 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * List the BR link in sources as well.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added— Chris! c / t 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the links added, they are just links to the highest scoring games by a single team, right? So you afterwards do your own calculations to find the highest scoring combined score?  If this is the case, I can do without these sources being listed :-) —Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I wanted to tell you that before, but I was viewing that page earlier and I just added for you to see.— Chris! c / t 03:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)|content=;Comments from Bagumba
 * Need a general reference that lists the highest scoring games to verify that the list is complete.
 * Done— Chris! c / t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Need more links to this article. It was an orphan until I linked Run TMC to it. Perhaps adding it to a navbox would help e.g. {{tlx|NBA statistical leaders}}.
 * Done— Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Be useful to breakdown the number of 20- and 30-point scorers (and perhaps even list the players) directly in the table among the number of double-digit scorers.
 * I don't know if that is a good idea. I don't want to overwhelm the note column and one can see that from the note.— Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The table already has notes like "3 players scored 40+ points". Granted 40 > 30 > 20, but 30 and 20 point IMO is more interesting than double-digit scorers, and this would also address your concern that the footnotes section is quite large.  I know you've invested a lot of time into this, but I think this would make the list more concise and interesting for an FL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I made the change to the first row. Is that the formatting that you prefer? I don't want the whole article just yet.— Chris! c / t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this point at Talk:List of highest scoring NBA games.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done— Chris! c / t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Might be more interesting to see the scorers breakdown per team, instead of an aggregate total for both teams.
 * Done— Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Make a sortable column for whether or not the game went into overtime.
 * Done— Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CITEHOW, publisher is considered unnecessary for all but books. If it is to stay, Template:Cite web recommends to leave off designations like "LLC".
 * Done— Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why include link to NBA season with the date? It would be more useful to link the teams to their specific season article (e.g. Boston Celtics ).
 * Done— Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The season is still in the date column, which looks clumsy to me. Perhaps you can explain the motivation for including it with the date.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the regular season list has removed the season, but the playoffs list still includes link to playoffs and note on which series it was (e.g. semifinals, finals, etc). I suggest instead to link the year in the date, i.e. "May 11, 1992", and add the series to the notes, i.e. "The Trail Blazers won the conference semifinals series 4–1".—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN, link to city ,state, e.g. Boston, Massachusetts
 * Done. I didn't change the links when the city name is the same as article name.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the reader is interested in {Denver in Colorado), not both Denver and Colorado. In any event, the state would always be in the lead in the city article.  This to me seems like the spirit of WP:SPECIFICLINK.  If it's a matter of effort, I'd volunteer to make the changes if there are no objections. I won't make this a condition for approval, either way.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Might be worth mentioning Nuggets coaches Doug Moe and later Paul Westhead and their offensive philosophy, considering their teams appear multiple times on the list.
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Need citations for Westhead using run and gun. Also, cites for both coaches tenures with Denver.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Should discuss that scoring per team was in the 100s until the mid-90s. Here is one source . The recent teams like Phoenix and Dallas were coached by offensive coaches Mike D'Antoni and Don Nelson, respectively.
 * Where do you think I should add this?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nelson coached the Warriors game mentioned in the lead, so that it one point to integrate him. The source says "As late as the 1992-93 season, teams were averaging 105.3 ppg" Since then, only Suns with D'Antoni and Nelson with Mavs are on the list. You could bring D'Antoni in there.  Maybe you can find some other sources on scoring since 2005–06 (which is where this source stopped).—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a b-r link that lists league scoring avgs per year.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added something. Did I address this point?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Only one post-1993 game makes the top-ten list": It wasnt entirely obvious the statement is limited to regular season. I was thinking to cover both regular season and playoffs with the trend analysis, as the eras for the records for both seem to coincide.  Then Nelson can be mentioned with Dallas as well as GS.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I made the change. I didn't add Nelson with the GS since I use the 1995-96 as the cutoff. I also moved the paragraph to the end as a way to conclude everything.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nelson can be mentioned in the regulation game record after Mullin and before Moe. Throw in Nellie Ball style of run and gum too. Then you can make note in last paragraph that his team is on the list again.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioned Nelson after Moe. Since the Moe part introduces run and gun and then the Nelson part brings in Nellie ball, a variation of run and gun.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Besides Vandeweghe, English, Thomas, Long ...": I wouldn't assume that a reader has read every preceding footnotes, so I would link names again and not consider it WP:OVERLINK.
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since {{dagger}} is used in Notes, which has full text, it seems more straightforward to add the short description "NBA record" directly into the notes instead of relying on the dagger and an entry in the key.
 * Done. The only thing I worry is that there too many notes.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant that "NBA record" should be in the "Note" cell, not relegated to a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of those number of days are quite large. Use {{tlx|Age in years and days}} instead of having readers trying to divide by 365 in their head. —Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there is already a dedicated "Notes" column, is there a reason to add more notes in footnotes in other columns as opposed to centralizing them all under "Notes"? —Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting everything under "Notes" would overwhelm the column. This format allows readers to see basic info from the table and they can read the additional info from the footnotes.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that an entry is a former record is significant, and having "Former record" in "Notes" or using coloring in the "Total points" cell with an accessible indicator should be used. I agree that the duration of the record is semi-trivial and is suitable to remain a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we have the dates footnote after "Former highest-scoring record", to keep them together. I guess to keep the locations of the dates consistent, the highest on the list will need a "Current highest-scoring record" in the notes, with the date footnote after it too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "High scoring games were not possible in the early days ...": "not possible" sounds strange, as "high scoring" is a relative term, i.e. game could be high-scoring for their era. Needs rewording to convey point that scores were lower relative to the shot clock era.  Quantifying with some numbers would be a plus. —Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Games above 100 points were not possible ...": "not possible" still does not seem right. Maybe rare, but a ref that has PPG avgs doesnt prove definitively that nobody scored 100 in some games.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "Games above 100 points were rare ..."? Or do you have a suggestion?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest "Teams only averaged around 80 points per game in the early days ..."—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Need a source for 51 being Vandeweghe's career high. —Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hyphens: Including the title of the article, there is an inconsistent use of hyphens with "highest scoring", "highest-scoring" and "low-scoring".  I'm not an English expert, but MOS:HYPHEN seems to suggest using hyphens in this case.  Googling news articles also shows inconsistent usage.  Pick one and be consistent. —Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For marking the games won by road team, it seems like the "Winner" cell should be marked instead. I find myself looking at the score marked as won by the road and then having to go back to the "Winner" cell to again see who won. —Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)}}


 * Conditional support List contents and organization are FL-quality. As the article is less than a month old, I'd feel more comfortable if someone more qualified than myself reviewed the prose for grammar and flow.—Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)|content=Comment The list looks well structured and sourced properly. Naturally a cut-off point would need to be chosen, either a certain number of games, or a minimum number of points. The top 10 of both the regular season and the play-offs could be reasonable for this. I have some comments about the lay-out, in particular
 * The red shading for the road team wins is distracting, it makes this the focus off the list. I would suggest removing this color. An additional option could be to switch to home and away team columns, removing the star and denote the winning team by making it bold. This would then be more in line with normal NBA results (it had me confused for a bit).
 * Your suggestion is good though boldface should not be used for emphasis per MOS:BOLD. I want to see what others think.—<font face="Cambria" size="3">[[User:Chrishmt0423| Chris!

]]c / t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, maybe an other alternative should be used, although I stand by my point that the red shading over emphasizes road wins. But waiting for other peoples opinion on this is fine. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there isn't already an explicit MOS on this, I'd tend to agree that red is jarring (make people think back to red marks from their school teachers).—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Color changed—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The softer color does add a more subtle emphasis which is good. It is a lot clearer this way. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The note about it being the record for N number of days would probably be more appropriate in the "Total points" column than the "Results" column.
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to "Record" per above.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 00:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Centering the numbers in the "Total points", "Result" and "OT" columns might make the table more visually pleasing.
 * Done, though WP:DTAB formatting prevents me from centering "Total points"—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing !scope="row" style="background-color:transparent" into | might do the trick, although I do not know what the disadvantages of this might be. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That formatting is required to satisfy WP:ACCESS.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 00:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, for my information, what is the reason you use the row-scope on the second element of each row and not the first one? CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because that column shows the key entry of the table.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 03:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems strange that anything but the first col in a row would be scoped. Isn't the relevant part of the row the rank, since this is a ranked list?  Otherwise, why isnt the pts col moved to first if it is more important.  This seems inconsistent.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a way to force centering. I think points are most important as the list is ranked by points. The rank column helps readers see better and looks better locating to the left of the table IMO.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding from WP:DTAB is that screen readers read out the scoped header data first. If this is the second column, it seems to be a different experience from those who view the data directly.  The rank column should be first, I just question points being used as scope.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. WP:DTAB does not have clear explanation. I just thought the scope thing should be placed in the most important column. I would like to see what others think first.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit lost. What in WP:DTAB or WP:ACCESS explicitly prevents centering?—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is technical. Anyway I managed to go around it.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The playoff list might have an additional line in the notes stating who won the series.
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall it is a very good list, the only real big issue that could be brought up is the inclusion criteria

CRwikiCA <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)}}


 * Support CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)|content=Comments – —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "If the team fails to hit the rim with the ball within the allotted time, the team would lose possession." – sounds somewhat awkward with just "the team"; it'd be better if it specified "If the offensive team fails to hit the rim with the ball within the allotted time, they would…"
 * "most field goals by one team (74), most assists by two teams (93)." – end of sentence, so there should be an "and" in between.
 * "Most of the highest-scoring games happened before the 1995–96 season, where average scoring (points per game) per team was always in the 100s." – in order for it to sound grammatically correct, it should read "Most…happened before the 1995–96 season, when the average scoring (points per game) per team was always…"
 * The key should have scope rows for the column on the left.
 * Don't make the backgrounds of scope rows invisible per WP:DTT. The whole point of having the scope rows visible is to "clearly identify [the] headers."
 * Table captions should be added (again, per WP:DTT
 * Everything else appears to meet FL standards. If you have time, could you help review my current FLC, please?
 * The color doesn't matter. The purpose of making table into DTT is to allow blind users to better read the table using screen readers. Everything else done.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)}}


 * Support – meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)|content=Comments nice work.
 * Six paras in the lead is a little hefty. If there's stuff here that's really important, I'd create a subsection for it and meet WP:LEAD.
 * I've restructured the article, so hopefully this is fixed.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * " in the early days of the" when was the early days? I'm not an NBA expert so there's no context for me here.
 * Sentence rewrote. Did it help?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * " with many fouls, boring fans and affecting attendance" I know what you're trying to say but the first time (and the second time) I read this, I got the feeling the fans were boring, not bored...
 * Sentence rewrote. Did it help?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "the NBA happened during the shot-clock era." again, I'm no expert, but aren't we still in the shot-clock era? If so "the NBA have happened during..."
 * Sentence rewrote.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Link overtime.
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nuggets are overlinked in the lead. At least twice.
 * Fixed—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What does "in regulation" mean to a non-expert?
 * I added some clarifications in the earlier paragraphs. Did it help?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You reference a lot of things in the lead, but, for instance, you don't reference "Wilt Chamberlain scored an NBA-record 100 points." Any reason?
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Winner" -> "Winning team", "Loser" -> "Losing team".
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What's a "road team"?
 * Linked—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "40+ points" ->" at least 40..."
 * Done—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all keen on just the year being linked for the playoffs, definitely borderline easter egg.
 * I've tried to have a separated links in the box, but it overwhelms the box with too much info. I was then told by another reviewer to adopt the current format. Any suggestions on how to resolve this problem?—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the one who suggested the egg-like compromise, but my preference would otherwise be to just remove it. the article already has links to the individual teams' season articles, which ideally would have details on the playoffs (if they were more developed). We don't have links to the general NBA season for the regular season entries, so it would be consistent to not have them for the playoff entries either.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)}}
 * Check for dead links... ref 37 doesn't work for me.
 * I fixed ref 37. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=List_of_highest-scoring_NBA_games now runs a clean report.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What makes 82games.com (ref 14) a reliable source? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 20:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done all. A reviewer suggests 82games.com as a source. A quick Google search reveals that the site is used by reputable sites like ESPN and WSJ, so I believe it is reliable.—<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! {{sub| c / t }} 00:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the source question out so other reviewers can see it and decide whether they think it's reliable. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * With all the references from reliable news sources to this site, I consider it reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.