Talk:2006-07 Toronto Raptors season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article 2006-07 Toronto Raptors season has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 26, 2007.
June 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
NBA This article is part of WikiProject National Basketball Association, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide of the NBA on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the WikiProject National Basketball Association, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Precedents

If you're looking for precedents for single-season articles, just see 2006-07 Phoenix Suns season. Many things happen in a single season for any given NBA team which can be profiled as encylopedic. We even have separate articles for every year's playoffs, NBA Finals and season recap. Chensiyuan 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the NFL has single season articles and before you say anything about popularity the NBA is much more popular around the world (e.g. China, Australia, Europe) than the NFL, this isn't the American Wikipedia. Quadzilla99 14:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikilinks for some of the NFL e.g.s: 2006 Tennessee Titans season, 2006 Dallas Cowboys season, 2006 Seattle Seahawks season, to name but a few. Ditto NHL e.g.s: 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season, 2006-07 Carolina Hurricanes season, 2006-07 Detroit Red Wings season, to name but a few again; and also MLB, e.g. 2007 New York Mets season, 2007 Houston Astros season. Chensiyuan 16:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In any event... Chensiyuan 06:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Taken right out of the GA criteria --

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

   (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
As far as I can tell this is a pass. Manual of style is complied with very well. Clarity is there.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to sources used;
   (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and
   (c) contains no original research.
Every relevant detail is clearly sourced and clearly formatted. Original research does not appear.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
The coverage is as the article's title suggests. Enough detail and compelling narrative.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

While there is some trace of a pro-Raps slant it is of a really minute quantity.

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

No issue.

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.

Images are legitimate, varied, and plentiful. Manderiko 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)