# Talk:Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: -- BigDom 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Overall, this is a pretty well written article, just have some improvements (mostly minor changes concerning the tense) ...

Lead
I would change "the National Basketball Association's (NBA's)" to "the National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise"
"Top Rank group would secure" ---> "Top Rank group secured"
"purchase the Wolves" – you've used Timberwolves before this and everywhere else in the article, so I'd change this to "purchase the Timberwolves"
"Taylor would purchase and keep the team" ---> "Taylor purchased the franchise and kept the team"
Relocation speculation
The first time the Target Center is mentioned, it would help to explain that this is the team's home arena
"Timberwolves ownership" ---> "The Timberwolves ownership"
"New Orleans would emerge" ---> "New Orleans emerged"
"New Orleans would later reemerge" ---> "New Orleans later reemerged"
Move to New Orleans
Since the team never moved to New Orleans, maybe this section would be better named "Proposed move to New Orleans"
"Top Rank was successful purchasing" ---> "Top Rank successfully purchased"
The rest of the section is written OK, but I think the last two paragraphs should be merged together.
Remaining in Minneapolis
"Glen Taylor would head a group" ---> "Glen Taylor later headed a group"
"the Timberwolves would make their first trip" ---> "the Timberwolves made their first trip"
Other general comments
The picture needs alt text
Throughout the article, sometimes the dates include a year (e.g. "February 11, 1994" and "June 15, 1995") but others don't. I realise that the dates are mostly from the same year, but it would be better to be consistent and add the missing years.
A pretty solid article, I'd be happy to pass this once the comments have been addressed. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you have any queries. Cheers, -- BigDom 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if anything else needs to be added, deleted or amended. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Seems to cover all the major aspects of a fairly small topic.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

All comments have been addressed and the article now meets the GA criteria, so I will happily pass this one. Please consider reviewing an article of your choosing. -- BigDom 05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)