Talk:2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 Michigan (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.
 
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

2k Sports Classic Tournament team[edit]

I am still waiting for the tournament team here: http://www.gazellegroup.com/events/cvc/awards.htm --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redshirt[edit]

Note that the redshirt symbol is based on the difference between http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/roster?teamId=130 and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/rosters/mich/byLAST_NM.html . --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm afraid that I don't see any reason not to quickfail this GAN for failing to meet requirement five: Stability. Because the season is ongoing, there's going to be a lot more information available, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that Michigan will do something really notable this season, like making the NCAA Tournament or winning the Big 10. Given your history of producing good GAs, Tony, I fully believe you'll be able to get this passed easily once the season is over. Until then, however, it's not stable, and I can't pass it in good faith. Good luck on your other GANs, though! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image request[edit]

Can anyone get a shot of the team standing for the national anthem. That would be a better main image because we could get everyone's faces. Also, if anyone has road game images in the white uniforms that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review 2[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any comments regarding the review below. Vicenarian (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Review Result = On Hold[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Excellent article, full of detail, great images.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well written, no grammar issues.
    B. MoS compliance:
    The lead section is extremely long and overly detailed. It should be simplified, and the detailed information contained therein moved into the body of the article. Also consider moving the roster to the bottom of the article, and keeping text regarding the team at the top. The layout of the images on the page could use some work as well.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Many sources, including ESPN, CBS; well-known and reliable.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Excellent and thorough use of citations.
    C. No original research:
    None apparent.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Good coverage of all aspects of the team and its season.
    B. Focused:
    The article may be TOO detailed, making it slightly less approachable for nonexperts in the topic. Consider some trimming, but overall, this will not cause a fail.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV respected.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article stable since nomination.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Wealth of excellent images, most free.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Relevant, well-captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for edits mentioned in 1b. Once complete, article will pass.

Vicenarian (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened the LEAD significantly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. There are a few broken references now, though. Any thought regarding the pictures? I was thinking if they were moved to the right side of the roster boxes, that would make the section look a little cleaner. Vicenarian (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Broken references?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I fixed one ref. The other seems to be the result of the closing of the newspaper. I converted the ref to a print format although I have never seen the print version of the story.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The broken refs I found were fixed by a bot. I also moved the top five scorers image above the roster, which makes the images and tables fit together perfectly. The article looks great now, excellent work! Vicenarian (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Review Result = Pass[edit]

PASS With the edits made, the article is now GA material. --Vicenarian (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)