Talk:2009 Big Ten Conference football season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2009 Big Ten Conference football 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
January 20, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject College football (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

'09 Purdue[edit]

Is there a reason why 2009 Purdue Boilermakers football team hasn't been started yet? All of the other schools have '09 articles up.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

How can all teams start their seasons at home if they play against one anaother ? 90.32.163.95 (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

During week 1 they play out of conference games, not each other.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Big Ten Conference football season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WFCforLife (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As part of the association football season task force, I was keen to take a look at content from another sport. My initial reaction is:


  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
    Symbol support vote.svg The article on the whole is well written, but there were a few phrases which affected understanding, such as inconsistency that might cause confusion and incorrect tense in places. Generally they'll be pretty easy to fix, I'll list them when I do my full review.
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    Symbol support vote.svg
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    Symbol support vote.svg
    (b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    Symbol support vote.svg I didn't look closely enough for this to definitively tick it off. Nothing struck me as particularly needing to be cited that wasn't, so I'll probably tick this off pretty soon.
    (c) it contains no original research.
    Symbol support vote.svg
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
    Symbol support vote.svg
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    Symbol neutral vote.svg No real problems here. There are a couple of things I think could do with very slight expansion, for a reader who has no knowledge of the sport/American sport in general. I'll explain these in my fuller review.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
    Symbol support vote.svg
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Symbol support vote.svg
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Symbol support vote.svg I certainly wouldn't fail the article on this point. But given how well attended these matches are, I just thought I'd ask whether it was possible to obtain a couple of free images via flickr, or if there are some already on the commons.
    I just added the co-MVPs. I will look for some more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    Looks good. If you have aspirations for a future FAC it might be worth going for a few more, but that does the job for me. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, it shouldn't be too difficult to get this up to the GA mark. I'll post my real review at some point over the next 24 hours. I've got this watchlisted, but if for some reason I take much longer than a day to post it, feel free to drop me a reminder on my talk page. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments[edit]

Lead

  • Getting to the point is a good thing, but the introduction is very abrupt. Perhaps the detail about this being the 114th Big Ten season could be brought forward to the opening sentence, along with the fact that it's Ohio's 34th Big Ten. Something along the lines of:
The 2009 Big Ten Conference football season was the 114th for the conference, and saw Ohio State conclude the regular season as champion for the 5th consecutive time, their 34th Big Ten title. This earned them the conference's...
Great suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the use of "and", but something along these lines establishes historic context and delivers the important detail, whilst also easing into the article a bit more gently.

  • Do the individual days ("Thursday" and "Saturday") need to be specified in the lead?
    • 90% of college football games are played on Saturdays and these were played in the same week on different days. This is just for clarity although the assumption would be that the 10 games were played on Saturday. I can remove these if you feel it would be an improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that playing a showpiece event on a Thursday is somewhat unusual in itself (anywhere). Perhaps replace "on Saturday, September 5" with "two days later"? WFCforLife (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "conferences at-large"- Is conferences a plural in this case, or should it be "conference's at large"?

Previous season, preseason and watchlists

  • What is a "bid"? I was reluctant to ask in the lead, and I'm normally reasonably easy-going on jargon, but I really don't know.
  • "98 percent" and "75%" are used in the same sentence. When used in a like-for-like comparison, they should be consistent.
  • The past tense should be used for "Purdue head coach Danny Hope begins his first season in West Lafayette.". Also, the sentence is in an odd position. It probably is worthy of note, but I'm not sure it belongs right at the top of the section.
  • "relesased" --> "released"
  • When did the Big Ten say all this about watchlisted players? Before the season, or partway through? It might be worth establishing this in the prose.
  • Initially I was going to ask why some players are redlinked and others not at all, but I see that this is because of duplication (and therefore correct). While looking into this I spotted that Gabe Carimi isn't linked at all.
  • "targetes" --> "targets"
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The sentence this spelling mistake occurs in is quite long-winded. Might be worth recasting it into two sentences.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if it's the same sentence, but "The suspension related to the new 2009 NCAA football playing rule for mandatory conference video review of an act where a player initiates helmet-to-helmet contact and targets a defenseless opponent." is still quite a mouthful. Try reading it aloud and you'll see what I mean. WFCforLife (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I was probably being a bit picky to be honest. It looks okay. Wikipedia is a constant process, so I'm sure someone will come up with an even better way of putting it in future. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't really a GA thing, but have these awards been given yet? If one or more Big Ten players receive one, it might be worth adding a recipients column.
  • It would be worth establishing which teams the acronyms refer to. Seven or eight of them seem pretty intuitive, but to be on the safe side it would be best to list them all once.

Rankings through to schedule

  • The see also at the top of the rankings section is a good link, but a brief introduction is needed about them. A reader might follow that link and never return if given no information whatsoever.
  • What do "AP" and "C" mean in this table? We've established BCS, but it may be worth repeating this for consistency when the other two are expanded.
  • Review the tense in this section. A couple of examples:
    • "Does not have spring game" --> "Did not have..."
    • "Minnesota will open the 2009 season its new 50,720-seat home field" --> "Minnesota opened the 2009 season at its new..."
  • Were the games in weeks twelve and fourteen not televised at all?

Records against other conferences onwards

  • I see no reason for the records section not to be up-to-date, now that the season has finished.
  • The all-star games section can be hidden for now. It seems like a reasonable structure, but there's no need for it on the live article until games have been played.
  • Nothing is sourcing the individual clubs' attendances. Ref 45 only sources the record.
  • Not strictly GA, but I always like to make suggestions for improvement in any case. I think there's scope to make the attendances table sortable, and that it would really enhance the data. I'm happy to help if you're not too familiar with that sort of thing.
  • What's the rationale behind the redlinks in the references? No need to create the articles, just wondering if they're actually notable?
    • I sort of feel that if they are a source in the news database I use, they are likely to eventually have an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I added another whole table. Above you sort of complained about redlinks and such. Should I link the names.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a complaint per-se. Redlinks to subjects that are (or might become) notable are a very good thing. Far better to have a redlink that we delete in ten years, than to not link to someone who becomes a major NFL star in ten years. My query was about Manistee News Advocate, Issues Wire and College Sports Information Directors of America.
      • I also expect "College Sports Information Directors of America" to have an article at some point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Basically, all the redlinks will either be professional football players in three years or not. It is not even a ten year thing. For kicks I just did the linked names in the all-conference list. I will add redlinks if that seems right to you.
        • I think the balance is right now. In these sorts of situations, the solution depends on the editor. Judging by your prolific record in article creation, the likelihood is that if anyone unlinked become notable in future, you would be involved with their article. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding comments[edit]

  • The position abbreviations in the "all americans" section could do with a key or expansion- whichever is easier. If the reader cannot understand "linebacker", clearly the issue does not lie with the article. But someone with a casual interest (a soccer fan taking an interest in American football being a good example) could struggle with simply "LB".
  • With the Big Ten vs. BCS matchups, a short introduction to the BCS would help. A few sentences would suffice. The reader may not know the significance of these matchups.
  • How can a team have capacity utilisation of over 100%?
    • I think it is a function of press passes and such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That strikes me as a strange concept. I'll try to do a bit of research of my own on this one, and I'll get back to you. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Never mind, what's important is that you've got reliable sources backing these statistics up, which I have checked carefully. Please let me know if you ever find out though, I'm genuinely curious. WFCforLife (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, a pretty interesting read with a nice structure. I'll keep this page watchlisted. As before, drop me a note on my talk page if I take a long time to reply, but normally I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on my reviews. Hope this helps, WFCforLife (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing suggestions[edit]

I'm happy to pass this now. Nice work. Here are a few starting suggestions if you intend to eventually take this towards FAC:

  • Look into the attendance anomoly. I checked and rechecked the source; it's reliable and the statistics are correct, and I can therefore justify passing it. But the question would come up at an FAC, and my guess is that an explanation would be expected.
  • Hunt down a few more images.
  • In the schedule section, consider a weekly roundup of the action. A good starting point for the weighting might be to treat a week similar to how this article treats a month.
  • Add in alt text for the images.
  • Consider reformatting the all-conference section. The table is not particularly easy on the eye.

All in all, nice work. Good luck with the 2008–09 Wolverines season as well! WFCforLife (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comment[edit]

Why the inconsistency in the results tables? Up to week three, all rows are colored, the big 10 school is bold, and the result is W or L. This follows the key. But after that, all teams are bold, color is intermittent, and the result is the team abbreviation. Please make sure the key is observed throughout. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)