Wikipedia:Peer review/List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 60 or more points in a game/archive1

List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 60 or more points in a game[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm ready to send it to be a WP:FLC but need a peer review first.

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared to answer why the cut-off point is 60 and not 50 or 70. Is 60 the magic mark according to reliable sources? Sandman888 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two main reasons: 1. Precedence – List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game; and 2. Yes, the official NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Media Guide lists the all-time single game scoring highs beginning at 60 points. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - while it is an interesting list, I think it needs a bit of work before FLC. here are some suggestions for improvement.

I do not think the lead follows WP:LEAD, which says The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The first sentence here is In basketball, points are the sum of the score accumulated through free throw or field goal.[1] which is an OK sentence, but not a proper first sentence. I think this sentence would be a better first sentence: This is a comprehensive list (through the 2009–10 season) of all occurrences of an NCAA Division I men's basketball player scoring 60 or more points in a single game.
From the title, this seems like it is only for NCAA Division I games, but the article says divisions have only been in place since 1955. However, several games (in both lists) took place before 1955, so this needs to be better explained. Since Division I was only established in 1973, that probably should be expalined too.
The current lead is 5 paragraphs - WP:LEAD says a lead should only be 4 paragraphs max. I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs could be combined. It is also possible to have background material after the lead but before the tables
Does the note in Against non-Division I opponents need a ref or refs?
I understand what it basically means, but am not sure what "legitimization" means in: For legitimization purposes, the official NCAA men's basketball media guide has two lists... Could it just be "The official NCAA men's basketball media guide has two lists..."? Why do the lists need to be legitimized?
OT needs to be explained in the tables (presuambly overtime)
Otherwise looks good to me - not sure if all the refs meet WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]