Talk:2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2013–14 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 28, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
April 27, 2015 Good article reassessment Kept
December 27, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
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.
 
WikiProject Michigan (Rated GA-class)
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 22, 2015. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Failing Article[edit]

@Biblioworm: The GA review was done correctly but next time, you should put it on hold. It would look like |status=onhold. I recommend you revert your edit and place the article on hold. Most of the issues can be fixed quite quickly. After the issues are addressed, pass it. And after a 7 day period, and they haven't been addressed, you can fail it. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheQ Editor: Yes check.svg Done --Biblioworm 03:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Biblioworm: - just fixed it for Talk:Mersea Island/GA1. It's a shame the review here failed, as TonyTheTiger is a highly experienced writer and GA reviewer, and would have hopefully come to consensus eventually. I find if you need a second opinion, it's best to have a few experienced editors you trust and just ping them, as using the "second opinion" in the GA review process can take considerable time for someone to come forward, particularly if the article is lengthy or the subject is obscure. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I really don't have a "trusted editor group" yet. --Biblioworm 19:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Biblioworm:, I didn't try to argue too much, but given that I have GAed 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, and 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, you could have worked with me on this one. Now, two editors are saying you probably shouldn't have jumped to fail this. You might again consider reverting. I am fairly certain any problems you find, I can correct although you have the right to say the required input for a list of concerns would be too extensive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Since it seems that I was a little "too quick on the draw", I'll try to go hunt down an experienced GAN reviewer who knows about basketball and get their opinion on it. --Biblioworm 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EdgeNavidad (talk · contribs) 11:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


I will do my best to review this article. Note that I sometimes may not respond in a few days because I am also busy in real life, so please have some patience; but because this article is already on the backlog for quite some time, I feel a slow review is better than no review. Furthermore, I am no expert in basketball. I have the opinion that wikipedia articles are best reviewed by persons that are a little bit 'at a distance', so I think I am qualified to review; other people might disagree. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have skimmed through the article, and it is not a quick fail. Some things I noticed:

  • In the table in "Departures", the weight has no unit.
  • Furthermore, it does not explain which departures these are. Between the 2012-13 and 2013-14 season? During the season?
  • Why is "2014–15 team recruits" in this article? They never played for the 2013–14 team, the subject of this article. Is the 2014–15 team article not a much better place?
    • I believe that it is standard procedure at WP:CBBALL to include the recruits for the following season as part of a given season's article. Any given team is intimately involved in recruiting future players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok.
  • I don't see the logic in the order of the headings. Currently:
1  Departures
2       2013–14 team recruits
3       Preseason
3.1     Roster
3.2     Pre-offseason rankings
3.3     Fall press
3.4     Practice and exhibition
4       2014–15 team recruits
5       Roster
6       Schedule
6.1     Regular season
6.1.1   November
6.1.2   December
6.1.3   January
6.1.4   February
6.1.5   March
6.2     Postseason
6.3     Results

My first guess for a logical flow:

1  Roster    (a section that combines all info on players of the 2013–14 team)
1.1     Departures
1.2     2013–14 team recruits
1.3     Roster for 2013–14 season (the table that used to be in "roster")
2       Schedule
2.1     Preseason
2.1.1   Roster
2.1.2   Pre-offseason rankings
2.1.3   Fall press
2.1.4   Practice and exhibition
2.2     Regular season
2.2.1   November
2.2.2   December
2.2.3   January
2.2.4   February
2.2.5   March
2.3     Postseason
2.4     Results
(and "2014–15 team recruits" possibly combined with "2014 NBA draft" as a section on players coming/leaving after the season)

This is just my first impression of the article, not a full review yet, but real life is calling now... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

More detailed review:

0 Lead
There is no link to Michigan Wolverines men's basketball (or do I miss it?). I think it would make sense to link to this in the lead, but I don't have any good idea for how. (it is in the infobox)
"for the 14th time in program history and the eighth time outright". It was not directly clear to me what "outright" means in this context, but from further on I understand it means unshared. Is 'outright' a normal term for this, or could it be too much jargon? (I don't know, and I trust your judgement.)
Outright is the term used in college sports journalism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough.
1 Departures
No source at all...
The weight column should have a unit (lb, I guess).
2 2013–14 team recruits

No comments

3 Preseason

No comments

3.1 Roster

No comments

3.2 Pre-offseason rankings

No comments

3.3 Fall press

No comments

3.4 Practice and exhibition

No comments

4 2014–15 team recruits
I think the sentence "Hatch signed a NLI on November 14, 2013." should come earlier, otherwise it is a bit strange to read. An easy solution would be to just move that sentence to before "Hatch, who survived a plane crash", and change some minor things to get the flow right, but there could be an even better solution.
Sentence moved. I am not sure what other minor flow issues you felt were relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I meant that you now have two sentences in a row starting with "Hatch". Not a big issue, just a minor style issue.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
5 Roster
"Beilein said that barring injuries, Mark Donnal would spend the season as a redshirt.". So, did he?
Sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
6 Schedule
You mention three games here. They are not part of the regular season and not of the postseason? They were also not part of the preseason, so how should I see this?
Merged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
6.1 Regular season

No comments, other than the remark that this text is difficult to read, but that I can understand it has to be this way... It is basically a list of games, but in prose. Nothing to change about that.

6.2 Postseason

No comments

6.3 Results

No comments

7 Statistics
I think it is a good service to readers to give tooltip explanations of the abbreviations in the table headers. I mean the following: GP.
I am a bit unsure of what format to use. I added {{NBA player statistics legend}} and changed some of the abbreviations to match. However, it includes a few items not used in the table.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
A legend is also fine. But you don't like the tooltip-suggestion I made?
I do not understand your suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion: where you now have "GP", put "GP". In wiki-code:{{abbr|GP|Games played}}. And so on for the other abbreviations.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Which columns do you remain concerned about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
OR and DR are not explained yet. I would add the abbreviations myself but I don't know what it means...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
8 Honors
I think it is good to lead this section in with one sentence, such as "Several of the team's players were honored by being included in honor-selections or being given individual awards." Or something else, I might not understand the honor-system that well...
9 Rankings
Maybe this is a stupid question, but here the weeks are from 1 to 19, and in 2013–14 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings they are from 2 to 20.
There is no official rule on whether the preseason poll counts as week 1 or not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. I think this article is more logical than the ranking's page, but we are not reviewing that one so everything is fine. :)
10 2014 NBA draft
10.1 NBA draft selections
11 Other departures
These three sections are all about departures, so I suggest they are combined into a section called "Departures".
"If he graduates as expected, he will be immediately eligible to..." This talks about the past as if it is the future. Tense should be changed.
Section revised.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
12 See also

No comments

13 References

No comments

14 External links

No comments

I still have to check if images are ok, and check references to see if they are a source for the content, but honestly I don't expect problems with that.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I was busy this week, but the next few days I should have time again to review more.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference 1 is used as source for "Under new NCAA rules, the team was able to begin preseason practice on September 27.", but I can not find that in the referenced article...
Reference 16 is dead.
Reference 79 is dead.
For the rest, the references seem to be ok. Phew, what a work...
Refs handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Images are all ok.
I think the issues are all solvable. I will put the review on hold, and once they are finished, I will promote this article. (Feel free to put a message on my talk page to remind me, if it takes too long.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As I see it now, three things to go:

-Well, that concludes things. As far as I am concerned, this article is GA! --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)