Talk:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 4, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 24, 2009.
WikiProject Basketball (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

3/2 POTW[edit]

Can someone tell me how Michael Thompson (30 pts., 4 reb., 9 ast, 5 st, 1 bl) beat out DeShawn Sims (46 pts., 12 reb., 2 ast, 3 st, 2 bl) and Manny Harris (42 pts., 16 reb., 7 ast, 1 st, 0 bl).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will do a complete review shortly. That being said, the first thing I need you to do is go through and modify the tense. I see a lot of present tense sentences when the 08-09 basketball season has come and gone. Wizardman 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here's the full review:

  • As stated above, fix the tense of the article. (I noticed some in the lead which I took care of, though it's not as widespread an issue as I originally thought)
  • Make sure the logo has a proper fair use rationale for this article.
  • Many sentences use the "On _date_" format. Mix starts up a bit.
  • Kinda going along with that, in general the prose doesn't really jump out at me or anything, just average.
    • I am at your service, but this is more a a factual detail than a prosaic (if that is a word) rendition. I.E., this article is about a bunch of statistics and lists. The prose is not so important to the list, IMO. I will change any problems you note and am amenable to any improvements you might be able to help me make.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This article feels more like a slew of lists and tables lumped together. There's not all that much prose to speak of, which disappoints me a bit. It doesn't feel like there's enough prose. Were any Big Ten matchups memorable? Could some of the tiny lists be prosified? These are some of the things I'd like to see, and admittedly it will be some work. I'll put it on hold and we'll see what happens. Wizardman 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • When I put this up The ACC began writing a similar article and I invited the PAC 10, Big 12 and Big East to make articles (see the bottom template). SEC fans declined to write a page. I would say that this is the second best article. The ACC is probably better (2008–09 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season). I don't think I would necessarily want to prosify the lists. I will take a look at the regular season and see if I can find anything like what the ACC has for its regular season section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright. The article's certainly nice otherwise, so I'll hold off for a couple days and see if it can be improved in terms of adding things. If not that's no big deal. Wizardman 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)