Talk:Stacey King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stacey King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stacey King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox picture

The quality of the infobox picture is atrocious. Is there not a better image out there? 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 06:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's the best I could find among those already on Commons. You can try going through Flickr, but I already did so and couldn't find anything. Hsnkn (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Confused about sentence in early life section

I'm confused about this sentence: "He was already considered an All-Star during his rookie year, but did not attend the game due to suffering first- and second-degree burns from a car accident in El Reno during the summer."

What All-Star game are we talking about here? "Rookie" isn't a term we'd commonly use for a rising college freshman. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the source. Zagalejo (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Major misunderstanding of the source on my part. King was not yet in college in the summer of 1985, and I simply confused "All-State" (as in the Oklahoma All-State Game for high school prospects) with "All-Star". Regardless, neither the game or the injuries he sustained seem particularly important so I removed it entirely. Hsnkn (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stacey King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hsnkn (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Experienced Reviewer: Matthew Yeager (talk · contribs) 05:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article.

@Hsnkn: I've left three comments below for you to review and let me know what you think. Two are some inconsistencies I noticed and I'm looking for clarity on them. The last item is updating a parameter for a few references. The article was overwhelmingly well-written, exceeding good article criteria, and carefully considered by @TheVoicelessWriter. Matthew Yeager (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. [1]
    Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. [2]
    Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. [3]
    This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. [4]
    Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. [5]
    Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. [6]
    The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

Criteria analysis

  1. Well-written:
    2. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (prose)
    • No grammar and spelling issues
    • The prose is clear.
    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS)
    • Previously missing "Career statistics" section has been added.
    • No issues in lead section.
    • No "words to watch" issue
    • The article properly follows the layout of Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Players.
    		 Pass Pass
    Close
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (references)There is a list of references with properly cited sources.Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)All sources in the article are reliable.Pass Pass
    (c) (original research)Source spot check done. No original research.Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)Possible copyright violation detected by copyvio detector. No violation found upon review.Pass Pass
    Close
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (major aspects)
    • Resolved stranded citation
    • The article sufficiently covers the life and career of Stacey King.
    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (focused)The article does not stray out of topic.Pass Pass
    Close
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. More information Notes, Result ...
    NotesResult
    The article was written without bias.Pass Pass
    Close
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. More information Comment, Result ...
    CommentResult
    No ongoing edit war.Pass Pass
    Close
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)The only image used is free and has been properly tagged. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)The only image in the article depicts Stacey King. It has a suitable caption.Pass Pass
    Close

Source spot check

  • 4. (a) checkY (b) checkY
  • 10. (a) checkY (b) checkY
  • 17. (a) checkY (b) checkY
  • 18. (a) checkY (b) checkY (c) checkY (d) checkY
  • 20. checkY
  • 21. checkY
  • 32. checkY
  • 33. checkY
  • 34. checkY

Result

More information Result, Notes ...
ResultNotes
Pass PassThe article meets the criteria of a good article.
Close

Discussion

  • Missing section
  • "Personal life and death" section
    • @Hsnkn: Per the Chicago Sun-Times, King "always had a big personality" and "enjoyed being the center of attention". He described himself as a "man of the people", staying after the end of Bulls games to sign autographs.[28].[14] Citation 14 doesn't match the statement before it, but there is a period before in-text citation 14. Is there a statement related to this citation that got deleted? TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 6:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Looks like several sentences about King's relationships were deleted by an IP user. Citation 14 was to note his engagement with Kathleen McGuire. Should I add them back? Hsnkn (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
        @TheVoicelessWriter: Done. Also added a bit to some other parts of the article if you don't mind. Hsnkn (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
        Looks good to me. The article passes based on my judgment, but I will have to wait for an experienced reviewer before officially passing this nomination. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Matthew's remarks

What do you think about using numerals for consistency when discussing statistics?

  • Early life and college career section: eight rebounds, six points, seven points, seven rebounds, two blocks.
  • Chicago Bulls (1989-1994) section: five rebounds, three blocks, three steals.
  • Later career (1994-1999) section: seven rebounds.

What about the consistency in linking the lead years to 1991 to 1993 with 1991-1992 missing, and then in Chicago Bulls having 1991, 1992, and 1993, with 1991 not linked?

Would you update the 6 The Oklahoman references to include |url-access=subscription?

Per MOS:NUMBERS, Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if some of the numbers would (or could) normally be written differently. Thus, I have made some changes based on your remarks about the statistics. I decided to keep He averaged six points in his freshman year and seven points in his sophomore year. in the Early life and college career section as is, per Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words and the aforementioned rule.
In the lead section, I have edited the text to explicitly include 1992.
In the Chicago Bulls section, 1991 has already been linked in the last sentence of the second paragraph in the same subsection as 1991 NBA Finals.
@Matthew Yeager: Which source? I don't experience any issues accessing any of the cited articles from The Oklahoman without a subscription. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 6:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • For The Oklahoman, all of the links () have an overlay saying "two ways to continue reading" and those two options are subscribing annually or monthly. You are able to access these articles in a new private browsing session?
  • @TheVoicelessWriter: Appreciate how boldly you jumped in to help bring the article up to standards with your edits. I wasn't expecting to find that you've written 8.3% of the page during the review. Anyways, you've addressed my issues, and we can follow up with the url-access afterwards. Please move forward with closing the review! Matthew Yeager (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI