Talk:Charles Barkley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Barkley article.
Article policies
Good article Charles Barkley 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.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Contents

[edit] Random

Sir Charles is a Japanese national? Is this correct? 75.26.175.190 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

Things about Barkley that could be added: AN IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL THING IS MISSING: A LIST OF THE YEARS THAT HE PLAYED BASKETBALL AT AUBURN UNIVERSITY. HE ALSO LEAD THE SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE IN REBOUNDING ALL THREE OF THESE YEARS.

You don't think that this is important? For a Nobel Prize Winner, where he went to undergraduate school, and when, is an important fact, and lists have been compiled of which winners went to which universities and in which countries.

  • one of the best rebounders ever, despite his lack of height (listed as 6-6, but about 1-2 inches less in reality)
  • in the list of NBA's top 50 players
  • known for his quotable quotes and unquotable quotes, many of them politically incorrect (such as the one on role models etc)
  • he wrote a couple of books (can't remember the titles now).

--Colemanyee 03:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mug shot

the mug shot doesn't really look like him. is that really a reputable source?Xwoodandwater 06:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message

I put that he has shown dislike for the Dallas Mavericks. This information is 100% true, for he has shown disdain for the Mavs many times during "Inside the NBA". Does everyone agree? 71.96.11.37 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not classify it as disdain. He has stated his opinion that the Mavericks do not play good defense and that they are not a championship team. In any case, even if this constitutes disdain, it is certainly not "for reasons unknown," as he has repeatedly stated his problems with the Mavericks. Also, such a minor detail is not important in the life of Charles Barkley, especially without any quote. He has, at one time or another, said that over half the teams in the NBA "stink." Dastle 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but he seems to constantly pick on them, constantly single them out, despite the fact there are many teams in the league,"worse" than they are. It is disdain, because numbers show that the Mavericks are a good (not excellant) defensive team, and he refuses to admit that (that also proves it is for reasons unknown). Some say it is because of racism, but I think it goes beyond that. I do not desire to repost this info, I only wanted to make this statement, because it seemed true. As for a quote: (Reggie Miller) " I disagree, Charles, the Mavericks are a solid team. I never said they would beat the Spurs, I simply think they are a pretty good team." (Charles) " Tell me, Miller, who's side are you on?" (Reggie Miller) " I'm only saying that the Mavericks are a good team, I am not on their side!" (Charles) " Yeah, well you better not be!!!" --(December 1, 2006, during the Mavs/Spurs halftime report )(I have more quotes if you want them!) 71.96.11.37 23:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with your claim is that you said he didn't like Dallas for "apparently no reason." If you are going to say that he dislikes Dallas, at least be accurate and show a neutral, two sided account. This is a good read: http://journals.aol.com/sportzassassin/SPORTZASSASSINSSPORTSJOURNAL/entries/1248
Take this quote from the article:
"Hey first of all, I love Mark Cuban. He ain't never gonna know more about basketball than me. I ain't never gonna have as much money as him, I'll never know more about computers, but he'll live to be 1000, and he'll never know more than us two about basketball. If he knew that, he wouldn't have put that little "soft cake" team together."
I still feel there isn't evidence that he dislikes the Mavericks (he just thinks they aren't a good defensive team).
Also, my suggestion is that if you feel that this is important enough to go into an encyclopedia article, which is up for debate, you should at least put such a statement in a broader perspective. For example, the only reason that this is a story of interest is that Charles is now a popular NBA reporter on TNT. His current occupation, in my opinion, deserves more space on the article than it receives, as it is very important to basketball today (he has drawn more fans to the game with his charisma). The dispute between him and Cuban is a result of the fact that he is a no-nonsense reporter who speaks his mind (although such semi-speculative statements probably don't belong in an encyclopedia). Note also there is more to the story than meets the eye: Mark Cuban is well known for desiring heavy media attention. Many feel that Cuban's statements about Charles are to get more attention in the press.
Dastle 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no need to repost this, I was only thinking since he usually talks about the Mavericks in a negative light, that I should say something. Again the reason I said, "for reasons unknown" (I didn't mean, "for no apparent reason"!), is that he constantly blames the team for something they are not guilty of. Take defense, for example, though his "bad defense" statements made sense in previous years, the Mavericks are notably playing improved defense, and he will not admit even that. Also, he usually makes false statments, that contradicts the truth. For instance, he made the statement, "the reason the Mavericks do not blow out every bad team they play, is because they do not play defense, and that allows teams to stay in the game." He prides the Spurs and Pistons as being "good" defensive teams, but if you look at their games, the Pistons and Spurs, have lost to (most recently for the Pistons, the Atlanta Hawks), or marginally defeated sub-par teams. This in turn debuncts what Charles said, "good defensive teams blow out every bad team they play". It is like he uses the "bad defense" exuse, to shield his true beliefs about the Mavericks. Again, I have no desire to repost this, what you have told me, makes plenty of sense. Heck, I am not even a Mavericks fan, I only wonder why the guy gives the team such a hard time! Forgive me if I wasted your time! 71.96.11.37 15:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Under "Politics" it has been noted that the Alabama state constitution requires candidates to be residents for seven years. Since Barkley is not now an Alabaman, he cannot run for Governor until 2014 at the earliest. See <http://www.madisoncountyrecord.com/articles/2006/08/10/opinion/oped2.txt>

[edit] Spitting on the girl

Nothing about him spitting on that 10 year old girl or whatever during a 76ers games??? That's gotta be one of the most historic examples of bad athetlicship short of running up to the stands to accost someone. --Jpawloski 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, that was a COMPLETE ACCIDENT!! I believe he was trying to spit on someone who deserved it. I mean, no one in their right mind would intentionally spit on a child!

Also, during the 1992-93 season he jumped over the scorers table to chase down a referee who was trying to head to the lockerroom without incident.

He's somewhat of a controversial figure and It would do this article justice for someone to make a small section on that.
--Dastle 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Inadvertently spit on a little girl, sitting courtside, when he meant to hit a heckler; later became friends with the child and her family (http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-barkley)

I'd be selling that spit on ebay. --Savethemooses 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chaos Dunk

There is rare footage on the flea market circuit that reportedly shows Barkley performing his patented technique, the forbidden Chaos Dunk. If anyone has further info on where I can obtain such tapes please post here. 65.33.170.190 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Barkley_Charles_#1_fan

[edit] Sir Charles

There is no reference in this article to 'Sir Charles' and the orrigin of this nick name. Seems to be a rather large piece of missing biographical information.

[edit] "Harkened" on rumors?

What does "he harkened on those rumors in Space Jam" mean? Dumpendebat 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barkley's Height

I know that he is listed as 6' 6" on nba.com but nba.com doesn't always tell the truth. There are many websites which say that Barkley is at 6' 5". Search it on google. So Please do not revert my edit. Thanks. MM 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I took my time to search informations about Charles' height and I must say, there are different versions about his height. On the one hand, he is listened as 6' 5", on the other hand as 6' 6". His height is rather involved to verify. Are there any solutions? MM 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael Jordan is definitely one inch taller than Charles Barkley. Well, is there a way to contact nba.com? Because 6' 6" for Charles Barkley is not right. MM 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The NBA has always listed players taller than they really are. Nate Robinson is listed as 5'9, but is closer to 5'6-5'7. It does not matter, nba.com receives their information from a players listed playing height, while in the NBA. You're assuming his height based on a picture, and uncreditable resources. Yes, many sites list him from 6'4 to 6'6. Barkley makes note of his controversial playing height in all his published books. Players, and announcers alike have always joked about a players supposed playing height or weight. The UserBox for all nba players on Wikipedia is designed to reflect their playing stats, and Barkley's playing stats, with regard to his height, has always been listed, in his 16 year career, 6'6'. A note on his height has been made in the subsection titled, early life and college career. If you want to make an added note in the introductory paragraph, then I believe that would be best. However, I do not think footnotes or skeptisms have priority over a players listed playing height/Billed Height, as noted by the NBA. The UserBox was designed to reflect a players Billed/Playing profile. Zodiiak 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If other NBA players would be listed one inch over their real height then I don't know why they have listed Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley as 6' 6". Michael is definitely one inch taller than Charles and I think that Wikipedia doesn't need to get compared with other websites. Wikipedia is an own website, what shows important informations and I think that 6' 5" should be right for Charles Barkley. Yeah, he is really that tall. Well, also celebheights.com says that Charles is about 6' 5". I could add 6' 5" as Charles current height. MM 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is it's own website, however, it relies on Sourced information. For NBA Players, besides published books and articles, it relies heavily on creditable sites; such as Nba.com. I'm not going to get into a Big Edit War for something as simple as Height, but if this Article is to ever achieve a better Grade than B, the "Real/Billed" note will have to be changed. I've been working on editing this article to bring it's grade up from B to FA status. It'll take sometime, but I think it's worth the effort. Anyone who wants to help, is greatly welcomed ;) Zodiiak 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Morris Munroe, we are here for verifiability, not necessarily truth. And what is truth? Your version of the truth or someone else's? May I advise you read Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. It pretty much states that if you cannot back up your information, don't put it in - regardless of your convictions. --Downwards 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see the picture above. Charles is definitely one inch shorter that Michael. Is there a way to solve this problem? MM 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The article makes note of his actual height, probably being in the vicinity of 6'4". It's stated in his College career and Player Profile sections, and cited utilizing his old nba.com player bio. I hope this is satisfactory enough ;) Zodiiak 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm listening Charles as 6' 5" again because once he was listed as 6' 4" and then as 6' 6". If you wanna hear my oppinion, Charles is exactly one inch shorter than Michael Jordan. And that's certainly not a vandalism. MM 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose we meet a mutual consensus on the issue. I've already clearly explained why he is listed as 6'6" and so has Downwards. I've also pointed out that we have made several comments regarding his actual height throughout the article. If you cannot provide something which has precedence over nba.com (verifiability), then please do not edit his height. It is not considered vandalism, but it is considered Unintentional misinformation. From your talk page, it seems you have a history of making these type of edits, and I ask that you refrain from adding this misinformation, especially after we have so clearly explained our positions, according to the rules set forth by Wikipedia. Zodiiak 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The correct listing would be 6'6, as to keep things simple we go by NBA listings. Also we would never go by a photo of one person atanding next to another, that's just silly and absurd. Quadzilla99 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already told you, that Wikipedia doesn't need to get compared with other websites! You can see www.celebheights.com if you don't trust me! The old wwe.com listed Charles as 6' 4" and the new one as 6' 6". And 6' 5" is in the middle. Do not revert this edit one more time! MM112 10:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's three-revert rule I have reported your name. You continue to revert and edit after discussion, and general consensus. In addition, you continue to create new user names in order to to revert to the same edit. You're annoying. Zodiiak 18:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, is the fact that Barkley himself wrote in one of his books that his height is closer to 6'4" not a verifiable source? I've just read this article for the first time and it seemed odd to have one section stating that his height as 6'6" with no further comment and then a section later in the article saying that his height is commonly wrongly stated as 6'6". I think there can be little dispute that he is NOT 6'6" tall, as this appears to be a matter of record (his own stated figure for his own height is surely more likely to be correct than NBA.com, especially when it is known that this source is consistently wrong on this type of information). Surely Wikipedia should choose its sources based on accuracy rather than popularity? I've not changed anything in the article tho, as this seems to be a sore spot with some people! If the value for Barkley's height in the sidebar is not changed then it should carry a note that this is not his real height, this is his NBA stat heght or it is disputed as his real height and should point readers to the text for further explanation - the Hulk Hogn article has his heght stat as "Billed Height: 6'7" " and mentions in the text that tho his height is reported as 6'7" his actual heght is 6'4" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan this seems like a good approach to take with this and all similar cases - 6'6" is his "billed" or "stated" heght by the NBA, tho by his own admision Barkley's actual height is slightly over 6'4" (he said its closer to 6'4" than 6'6", thus it will be closer to 6'4" than 6'5" so it is more correct to state it as 6'4" than 6'5".Dex 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad english, i learned it at school. Barkley is listed at 6'6" at NBA.com, but this is his height in shoes. Without shoes it is 6'5", the same like Jordan. The picture above mentioned is absolutely inappropriate to compare the height of C.B. and M.J. In a Dream Team roster picture you can clearly see that Barkley is not smaller than Jordan. This picture is much better than the one you talk about. http://www.sneakerfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/dreamteam.jpg So, if Jordan is 6'6" Barkley is 6'6" (or even 6'7").

[edit] Clerks cartoon series

Why is there no mention of his apperances on the Clerks cartoon series. He was in all but one of them and he voiced them as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.187.222 (talk)

Clerks cartoon? I've never heard of that. If it merits noteability, then obviously it should be included. Do you have a reference or something that'll help us better understand his part? Zodiiak 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You're missing an underrated little series (netflix it): Clerks: The Animated Series. --Bobak 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to check it out sometime. The article is still being revamped, so maybe it can be worked in somewhere. Zodiiak 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godzilla Vs. Barkley (1992)

Nike made a big push for this ad campaign way back when. Is this notable? If so, where? As evidence, I proffer evidence from the repository of this sort of stuff, YouTube: Trailer (which aired as a commercial for the commercial, seriously) and Commercial. --Bobak 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that discusses the value of the commercial, then yes it is noteable. Otherwise, it can be regarded as trivial, from an overall historical perspective. I'm still working on the article, and have virtually revamped it to eventually bring it up to Featured Article Status, so a few things have been removed because of a lack of source, lack of notability, or just not encyclopedic. Zodiiak 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yao Ming and TNT

Why was the Yao Ming incident removed? Overall I think the section for TNT is now too small, he's tremendously well known for his role there and as time goes on he'll be known for that more and more to a generation of people than his basketball career. I mean how many know John Madden as being a coach? This guys is becoming like that. Tayquan hollaMy work 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The section does need to be expanded. I don't think his comments on Yao are specifically noteable. I've been working on the article and looking at everything from an overall career retrospective. In that sense it seems too trivial to highlight his yao comments, since he's known for making silly and usual blunt remarks about NBA players. Maybe a few examples can be given to back up the claims, but I think that should be limited (see Legacy section) so that it doesn't divert attention from his overall stake in TNT. I mainly cleaned up the section because it just seemed to be very unencyclopedic, and read more like a blog/fan site. I'm still working on the article, and haven't been able to center on the section yet (I'm up to Legacy), but you're more than welcome to help out =) Zodiiak 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the Yao incident as trivial at all. That section needs to be expanded, also some quotes and antidotes from him need to be added to illustrate his personality. I wouldn't recommend it in another article but with Barkley some quotes need to be worked into the text to illustrate his personbality. There's a difference between saying he's funny and showing it. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure became is past tense. For instance you wouldn't say "since starting his NBA career Kobe became a highly successful basketball player." Tayquan hollaMy work 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously became is past tense. But did he just become an analyst, or did he become one after he retired. If he came an analyst after he retired, then it's past tense. Either way, it's just semantics. I already stated that a few examples can be given to illustrate his comments, and stated that it does need to be expanded (and will), and even asked for help. People have a tendancy to just throw a bunch of fancruft into the article, rendering it into some sort of online blog. It becomes completely trivial and reads like a fan site. I don't think an entire paragraph about just Yao Ming or one specific player alone is required for Barkley's' article, and once again will reiterate that a few examples can be given to illustrate his frankness. Zodiiak 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't bold things it's condescending and belongs in a forum or message board not here. Show me where I said a paragraph belongs here, 2 sentences would be fine. Tayquan hollaMy work 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I never knew Bold was condescending. I think saying things like "I'm pretty sure became is past tense" is more condescending than it. Also, the Yao incident that was removed was relatively a paragraph. Zodiiak 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on October 12, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars or is the subject of a future event

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I'm not sure that the weight thing is pure vandalism, but it looks like it's been going on for a while. I suggested re-nominating it one week after the edit warring stops, at which point I can give it a more full and proper review. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Over one month of waiting for it to be reviewed and it fails because of a few days of some anon-ip editing Barkley's weight. That's extremely frustrating. I'll be sure to resubmit once things have died down a bit -- thanks Zodiiak 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is, without question, the worst GA review I've ever seen and heard of. Chensiyuan 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And by the GA Reviewer of the month no less! Cheers, CP 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
WABD!! Chensiyuan 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Zodiiak 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review 2

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Just to end the complaining, not only did I review this article, but I gave you a full copy edit as well. Here's my review:

  1. Stuart smalley.JPG does not have an acceptable fair use rationale. It should be removed, unless there is a very good reason for its inclusion.
    1. I think given its grainy quality the quality of the article would not be diminished with its removal, but I'm not mooting for removal either, I'd leave it to Zodiiak. Chensiyuan 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Done: Removed. It does have a poor fair use rationale and does not add much to the article. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. The career statistics should be moved to the bottom, below all of the prose.
    1. I can imagine why you'd request that, but I think the article is divided into basketball (top half) and non-basketball. Hence the statistics appear at the conclusion of the basketball section. Chensiyuan 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    2. Consider too a precedent in Tim Duncan, which is an FA, and which slots the stats at the bottom. I suppose it's an issue of aesthetics. Chensiyuan 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Correct. The article is divded into his career before and after basketball. I think this type of structure makes the most sense. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    To be honest, it looks a lot better than I remember it looking when I first reviewed. Should be fine where it is. Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. All one-two sentences must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
    Question: Can you give an example? Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    The last paragraph of the lead, the second paragraph of "Olympic career," the last paragraph of "Player profile" (the quote counts as one "sentence" in my mind, as it's only adding one bit of information) and the first paragraph of "Books" are the ones I spotted. Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Done. Zodiiak (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. The lead needs to be a little more NPOV: it should state only facts, not relative opinion (eg. Barkley established himself as one of the most dominating power forwards in the history of the National Basketball Association (NBA)) It's somewhat less acceptable to have these things in the lead, since there aren't citations and such things can be easily challenged.
    1. Standard gripe about greatness, and fair enough, but I would argue that given what a lead is supposed to be, citations need not be provided at that point in time. Still, I think the easier way to resolve this is to reduce unattributable opinion. Chensiyuan 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, bad phrasing. I meant to say that "It is somewhat less acceptable to have these things in the lead, since citations are not required in this section..." So yes, your solution is optimal. Cheers, CP 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: The NBA named him one of the 50 greatest players in their history. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Right, which is a fact. I'll let the lead pass, but it should try to remain as objectively factual as possible. While statements such as the one I highlighted originally are verifiable, they're not exactly appropriate for the summary, which is supposed to give the uninitiated as objective a review as possible. Verifiable, but somewhat unnecessary. I won't hold it against the GA, but if you're thinking of going towards FA, it might be something to think about. Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Some statements require citations:
    "The 76ers were swept in the first round of the playoffs by the New York Knicks." (Philadelphia 76ers) Obvious to you and I now, maybe not to someone 100 years from now.
    The third paragraph of "Role model controversy," especially since it's a direct quote. I know it comes from the show, but to get an exact quote, there must be a source somewhere.
    The first paragraph of "Turner Network Television (TNT)"
    "He went on to state, however, "No matter how much I win it ain't a lot. It's only a lot when I lose. And you always lose. I think it's fun, I think it's exciting. I'm gonna continue to do it but I have to get to a point where I don't try to break the casino 'cause you never can."" (Gambling) Again, direct quotes must always be cited
    The entire "Books" section
    Done: Added citations where necessary, pending one. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point made in the article (for example, it seems non-neutral because it doesn't mention his controversies) and not introduce anything that is not in the main body of the article (it doesn't do this explicitly, I don't think, but just the fact that it skips over so much make the summaries look like "new information" – addressing the first part should take care of this). This will make the lead significantly bigger of course, but that is to be expected for an article of this size.
    Pending: Will do, tomorrow. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Done. Zodiiak (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. "Barkley's talents were perhaps best summarized by NBA Hall-of-Famer Bill Walton." (Player profile) This is very POV. Who says that they were best summarized by Walton? Easily challenged, should be removed.
    1. I think it's not so much POV but more of over-inference. In any case I've rephrased it. Chensiyuan 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. "Barkley currently works as..." (Turner Network Television (TNT)) This statement will date poorly and should be replaced with something more temporally concrete (ie. Since 200X, Barkley has worked as...)
    1. I'm not entirely sure when he started the TNT job, so I'd leave it to Zodiiak to resolve this. Chensiyuan 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Done: Added date with Source. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed at any time. In addition, please note that this is only a preliminary review and that I will be conducting a secondary review, mainly focusing on the references. The hold will not be extended for this secondary review, so please ensure that the above concerns are dealt with in a timely manner. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thank you both Chensiyuan and CP for your input, edits, and review. I'll comb through your points and do my best to revise the areas you feel need work when I have some spare time. Thanks again for taking the time to review. Zodiiak 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Updated progress above. Please feel free to review. Will do more tomorrow, thanks! Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Have commented where needed and updated the buttons. Looks likes it's going very well! Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks very much for your time. I'll finish going through it tonight and will hopefully have it completed. Thanks again! Zodiiak 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How's the progress? I have no problem extending the hold, since work has been done addressing these concerns. Cheers, CP 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not being able to complete it sooner than later. Work has kept me busy lately. I'll try and finish up tonight, thanks again! Zodiiak 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I will extend the hold for four days past the original end date then, which is three days from now. Cheers, CP 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your understanding and time. I think I've addressed everything. However, i'll give it another scan later on today to ensure it's the best results possible. Thanks again! Zodiiak (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's done. Feel free to review and inform me of any necessary changes. Thanks. Zodiiak (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking it over now. Cheers, CP 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Reference #45 and #53 do not lead to where they are supposed to. References #14 and #53 do not have an access date. These will need to be fixed. Cheers, CP 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. =) Zodiiak (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, I will now be passing this as a GA. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
YAY! Thanks very much for everything CP! Zodiiak (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)