Talk:2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2014.
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Michigan (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. In accordance with lead sections (see left), ideally all it should consist of is a set of summaries of longer or less-joined up statements made elsewhere. Therefore to be kind to the readers you might want it to be a little less detailed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. One of the tables was way over to the right which is bound to offend looking via a tablet or smartphone. I'll fix this. You can use {{clear}}, see Template:clear which gives the left right and center options and there is the clearall template too.
2b. 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. 252 sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
2c. it contains no original research. No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements. There are a couple of easily verifiable diagrams and tables which simply summarises other facts so are not original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Compared to other articles on comparable season subjects, this article is very well developed, even to the extent of having the schedule in nice readably medium long paragraphs.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No deviations
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

None of the articles linked to (links) need disambiguation in their coding.

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that's done perhaps we could consider removing the lead's stadium capacity, which, while not quite fixed, seems like digression here, as opposed to in a team article, though by encyclopedic convention not necessarily in an "infobox" which is a Mecca for statisticians... and dare I say it should this convention-only view not prevail (philosophically, what in encyclopedias cannot be improved by numbers?) the digression into this outstandingly ample capacity is Peacock which is elsewhere not seen even for such a top flight team. The records really do however each stand out in US basketball for the season and make a great read for anyone aspiring in the whole sport. - Adam37 Talk 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Done, but not really sure why.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit to lead[edit]

The edit summary box wasn't large enough to hold the entire edit summary, so for my recent edit:

Identifying the most recent year they were 16–0 is relevant, but identifying that they won a conference championship in that year is not essential to the point, especially given that the bulk of those wins were non-conference games. It is even less relevant to include the information that the team won the regular season championship in the prior year. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial help. I am on board with all your changes except this one. The point of the statement is to contextualize which historical Michigan Team we are talking about. At one point it said the last team to successfully defend a Big Ten Championship as compared to the last team to win a National Championship. Now it says last repeat Big Ten Champion, which is a different emphasis but the same point. Basically, this team matched all the great Michigan teams of the past 1985–86, 1988–89, 1991–92 and 1992–93 in various ways.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to push back.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Injury - identify, or better yet, remove[edit]

I assume the reference in the lead to an injury contributing to losing three out of four games was the injury to Jon Horford. (Hardaway's injury was around the same time, leading to some small confusion). My first thought was to include the name, but now I'm thinking differently. You seriously think an injury to a non-starter who managed 4 points in his last full game against Binghamton, and zero points in his prior game is that note-worthy? I don't know the team, but this sounds like a stretch. While it looks like he is more in for defense, he's not a starter, or even a 20 minute sixth player. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The injury was to starter and Big Ten All-Defensive team selectee Jordan Morgan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and for adding the name. I originally thought the injury was being used to explain the first loss to OSU. I now think that was my misreading, but that's why I searched for injuries prior to the game, and missed the reference to Morgan later. Missing Morgan is worth the mention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No paragraph break?[edit]

The prose transitions from the B1G tournament to the NCAA Tournament without even a paragraph break? I gather it is because the conference tournament discussion was only two sentences, and it is usually not good form to have a two-sentence paragraph, but the NCAA Tournament is a major change in subject. I considered adding a paragraph break, but it might be better to expand the conference tournament discussion, and I'm not the best one to do that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed wrong to have such a short paragraph by itself and the Big Ten Tournament was basically a big disappointment in the context of such a successful season. Any further text on the subject is sort of artificial, although if mandated to do so for a WP:FAC, I could expand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand the challenge. I've never been a FAC reviewer, so am not the best one to comment, but I'll be surprised if it isn't suggested at that time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Corey Person status[edit]

While it is clear that Corey Person started as a walk-on, I didn't find definitive sources stated whether he was or was not on scholarship for his fifth year. Many sources refer to him as a walk-on, I found none indicating that he received a scholarship, so I added his status to the roster box. If that information is wrong, the main text "and the return of walk-on Corey Person for a fifth year" needs to be corrected as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

understood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

Wouldn't be better if this article is merged with its umbrella article, the Michigan Wolverines ?

I guess ANYONE can write an article about ANY particular year for ANY particular team for ANY sport and for ANY department/state of ANY country in ANY region of the world. But then is this in line with Wikipedia principles?

I believe under this tendency there is a huge risk that Wikipedia becomes a big, fat and sterile monster full of pretty English sentences about nothing else than rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.1.78 (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)