Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:35, 25 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1
- Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it is part of a WP:GT that I hope to bring to WP:FT status. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In an effort to avoid the dab link in the link checker to the right I am in a situation where I need help piping Hamburg in {{College Athlete Recruit Entry}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like I need to work on the WP:ALT. Will do tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added alt text to the images. {{NCAATeamSeason}} needs to be reformatted to accommodate WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was updated. All images now have WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text done; thanks.
The alt text that's there is quite good (thanks), but it's still missing for File:20081206 Crisler Arena fan celebration after Duke victory.jpg, and for the several instances of File:Redshirt.svg (I suggest simply "redshirt").Eubulides (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The alt text was there for the celebration, but I forgot alt=.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. Also, I fixed the redshirt icons. That should do it for the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt text was there for the celebration, but I forgot alt=.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text done; thanks.
- The template was updated. All images now have WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added alt text to the images. {{NCAATeamSeason}} needs to be reformatted to accommodate WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The tool tells me I have some refs to clean up. I will get to those tomorrow. I am going to sleep now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the refs are good now. I am off to the gym. I will get to the WP:ALT text in the afternoon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fix unit symbols per longstanding MoS rules; they are not followed by dots, they do not change in the plural. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No "lbs." according to our longstanding house rules, and according to the modern metrological concepts distinguishing "symbols" for units of measure from other abbreviations. It's improper on both counts. Of course, the one that is there shouldn't be there, though that format should be used in other tables rather than the clumsy footnote, at least until they are made more parallel to the one more appropriate for an international audience. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. You were talking about the column heading. I have removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No "lbs." according to our longstanding house rules, and according to the modern metrological concepts distinguishing "symbols" for units of measure from other abbreviations. It's improper on both counts. Of course, the one that is there shouldn't be there, though that format should be used in other tables rather than the clumsy footnote, at least until they are made more parallel to the one more appropriate for an international audience. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Object I'd have to say that an article on a sports team's seasonal campaign, without a discussion of the team's strengths and weaknesses, isn't good enough. There are only a couple of paragraphs briefly listing results and some numbers and such, but nothing on the team's style of play, which is a core feature of any team. I briefly looked at the prose in the background section, and I would bet that Tony1 would object to the not very well integrated sentences that read like end-to-end dot points or the use of the present tense when the season is already done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "background section"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It only lists their ranking and number of wins and losses from last year and that some opinions polls rated them lowly. It did not say that the coach acquired such and such a player because last year they had no tall players and couldn't get any rebounds, or that they bought some guy because he was fast and the older players were too slow. It's the same in any draft. Every team has different weak spots they need to cover up. The team only had 50% win rate. Nothing in the article explains why the other teams were better than them? Why were they inferior? Which weak areas did their opponents exploit? There is little in the article except raw stats. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added two paragraphs at the beginning of the Season section. Is this what you want?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It only lists their ranking and number of wins and losses from last year and that some opinions polls rated them lowly. It did not say that the coach acquired such and such a player because last year they had no tall players and couldn't get any rebounds, or that they bought some guy because he was fast and the older players were too slow. It's the same in any draft. Every team has different weak spots they need to cover up. The team only had 50% win rate. Nothing in the article explains why the other teams were better than them? Why were they inferior? Which weak areas did their opponents exploit? There is little in the article except raw stats. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "background section"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Things are heading in the right direction, yes. At the end of hte season did the pundits do a wrap-up analysis and discuss what trades/changes need to be made to improve next season? Also in football (soccer) season articles, there is a device for mapping in diagrams of formations with players in certain slots and geometries. Is that possible here? It would be a nice addition. Also, can you get links for things like "slasher" and "cutter" in there? And the 1-3-1 type things, if there is a list of terms to link to. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find cutter and slasher in Category:Basketball terminology, but I found 1-3-1 defense/offense and 2-3 Zone Defense. You did not say how much detail you want in the game summary text. I hope to start beefing that up today, but hoped for some guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Things are heading in the right direction, yes. At the end of hte season did the pundits do a wrap-up analysis and discuss what trades/changes need to be made to improve next season? Also in football (soccer) season articles, there is a device for mapping in diagrams of formations with players in certain slots and geometries. Is that possible here? It would be a nice addition. Also, can you get links for things like "slasher" and "cutter" in there? And the 1-3-1 type things, if there is a list of terms to link to. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't classify this article as comprehensive on gameplay either, it is very skimpy. The section on the nine "Big Ten" matches covers around only 3 paragraphs, a total of around 3kb of prose by visual estimation, and in many places it only says they won or lost in one sentence without explaining if they went into a form slump/boost or some key player got injured or anything. I clicked on the sources and ESPN have a text commentary of each game so there is a lot of stuff available out there. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear what the expectation is for game-by-game detail. There are only two sports team season at WP:FA both are college football 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team. Admittedly, both have much more game detail than this article, but a college football season is only 13 games. For other major sports, especially professional ones, I am not sure whether such detail should be expected. College basketball teams could play 40 games or more. This team could have played 41 if they had reached the finals of the 2009 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament and the 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. At 35 games, I am not sure how much detail is appropriate. What would we expect of a pro baseball, hockey or basketball team? I can and will add more, but I am not going to do each game at the level of detail of the FA football artivcles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting an association football team who play a minimum of 48 competitive games a season, I would be interested in opinions on this as well. I'm capable of going into that sort of detail for each game, but it seems like overkill to me. WFCforLife (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me if this rises to the level of detail that you desire or if you want more. I want to know before I move on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting an association football team who play a minimum of 48 competitive games a season, I would be interested in opinions on this as well. I'm capable of going into that sort of detail for each game, but it seems like overkill to me. WFCforLife (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear what the expectation is for game-by-game detail. There are only two sports team season at WP:FA both are college football 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team. Admittedly, both have much more game detail than this article, but a college football season is only 13 games. For other major sports, especially professional ones, I am not sure whether such detail should be expected. College basketball teams could play 40 games or more. This team could have played 41 if they had reached the finals of the 2009 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament and the 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. At 35 games, I am not sure how much detail is appropriate. What would we expect of a pro baseball, hockey or basketball team? I can and will add more, but I am not going to do each game at the level of detail of the FA football artivcles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's reasonable yes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded most game summaries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's reasonable yes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Need to beef up on individual games. Those two wins over top 5 opponents are huge; I'd give them about a paragraph each. That portion after "season" needs to be moved to something like "playing style". ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded most games and moved the text. I will work on the top 5 opponents next.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded both top 5 games. Let me know if you want more and I will look up the local coverage from the Ann Arbor News, Detroit Free Press, and The Detroit News.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can put more in. In particular, more in the "postseason section". The NCAA tournament is where teams show how good they are. Have not even looked at prose yet.~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Today I beefed up the top 5 wins. This weekend, I will beef up the Big Dance games.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have beefed up the tourney win. I don't think we want to expand the loss.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Today I beefed up the top 5 wins. This weekend, I will beef up the Big Dance games.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can put more in. In particular, more in the "postseason section". The NCAA tournament is where teams show how good they are. Have not even looked at prose yet.~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded both top 5 games. Let me know if you want more and I will look up the local coverage from the Ann Arbor News, Detroit Free Press, and The Detroit News.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded most games and moved the text. I will work on the top 5 opponents next.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
Current ref 27 (Michigan Wolverines 2008-2009 Scholarship roster) is lacking a publisher. What makes this a reliable source also?- I removed this fact, which I can not reliably source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original (Tony, we've had this one a million times before ... can you try to fix it BEFORE FAC next time?) (current ref 120 USBWA...)- Got it. Sorry. I missed that one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "The 2008–09 season marked team's the ninety-second consecutive season as a basketball member of the Big Ten Conference." Swap "team's" and "the".
- Preview: "as well as geographical rival Eastern Michigan Eagles and the team played against the preseason #2 ranked Connecticut Huskies." Convulted grammar; the sentence would be better off split into two. And should all these team names have "the" in front of them?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commas should be around "like rival Ohio State Buckeyes".
- Sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roster: "However, Benzing failed to achieve the NCAA's initial-eligibility guidelines and did not play." I don't think players can really be said to "achieve" the NCAA's guidelines; they aren't what I would consider goals. A more-straightforward word would be "meet".
- "who averaged over 21 minutes each of his four season." Last word should be plural.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Michigan granted two of its scholarships fifth-year redshirt graduate students C.J. Lee and David Merritt in September." Missing word: "to" should be after "scholarships".
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Preconference: Dash needed for date range toward the end of the section's second paragraph
- What date range?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Maryland game was the marked Sims' entry into the starting lineup." More missing words. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.