Wikipedia:Peer review/Rob Pelinka/archive1

Rob Pelinka

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very extensive and complete. I think it is an article that has WP:FA potential.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • MOS - you know you don't put link titles in all capitals even when they are such in the original
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes the following reliable sources:
    • http://www.draftexpress.com/
    • http://www.databasesports.com/
  • Current ref 45 is lacking the newspaper title
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article but I think it needs some work before it is ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Most difficult criteria for most articles to meet is 1a, professional level of English. I think this needs a copyedit after the other issues are addressed. I will pick one sentence from the lead for some examples: As a senior, he was overlooked by many scouts and recruiters at the Division I-level entering his senior season, but his MVP performance in a four-game tournament where he made all 42 of his free throws and impressive senior season statistics propelled him to a highly recruited status. First off this is quite long and could probably benefit from being split into two. It is needlessly repetitive (are all of these needed: "As a senior" and "entering his senior year" and "senior season"?) "propelled him to a highly recruited status" just seems awkward. How about something more like Entering his senior season, Pelinka was overlooked by many Division scouts and recruiters. However, his MVP performance in a four-game tournament, where he made all 42 of his free throws, and his impressive season statistics made him highly recruited by the end of his senior year.
  • I always have trouble finding copyeditors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have not forgotten the bridge we plan to work on ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• The second paragraph in the lead does not use his name once (only "he"). As impressive as his high school basketball career was, does the article really need one of three lead paragraphs solely on his high school career? This is a man who helped take his team to the Final Four three times! See WP:WEIGHT
  • Given Pelinka's athletic accomplishment, his high school career is relevant. He does not have any more high school content than say Tyrone Wheatley, although Wheatley's is spread out over various paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not have a problem with the level of detail on high school in the lead, just would prefer to see it spread out like Tyrone Wheatley's lead. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• No mention of his mother or any siblings. Even if his mother was absent from and early age, at least say so.
  • Nothing in sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks for checking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• More language that needs to be cleaned up: do there need to be three sentences in a row in Education that refer to the Walter Byers Scholarship (in three different ways)? Could these be combined?
  • I reduced three mentions to two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Or this Pelinka chose to attend Michigan Law School immediately after graduating from his undergraduate program instead of playing basketball in Europe and became a top law school student. could be something like Instead of playing basketball in Europe, Pelinka chose to attend Michigan Law School after graduation and became a top law student. I dropped immediately as we already know he played in the NBA Summer camp and I assume he did not graduate then start law school the next day.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Lots of places where you need to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Many places could use years or dates to make things clearer. What year did he graduate from law school? Or this At this time, he first met Arn Tellum and decided not to play basketball.[1] The name is not spelled right - it is Arn Tellem - and there is no context provided. If you don't already know Tellem is a sports agent, this makes no sense. Even if you do know, why did this meeting lead to the decision? Or even identify WJR as a Detroit radio station (you don't have to say it is the Great Voice of the Great Lakes though). Or what year did this take place He then branched out on his own and founded The Landmark Sports Agency.
• Organization is odd in several places and could be tightened up - so as to be more chronological. I would combine the basketball and education sections. As it is we are told about his HS bball, then college bball, then go back to hs again, then back to college, then on to law school. This is confusing.
  • It is not unusual for an article to organized topically rather than chronologically.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I prefer chronological, but it does not have to be organized that way. I would try to make sure things are as concise as possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the focus on Pelinka. Why does the fact that some of his former teammates appeared in a movie that he had absolutely nothing to do with belong in this article?
  • I can not connect him to the movie directly, but nonetheless find the indirect linkage interesting and not too far from the topic at hand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, again this is your call, but my preference is to axe the movie, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• How much does he make as an agent? If a percentage is standard, say that. As it is the agent section is just sort of "here's a famous player. Pelinka's his agent. Here's some things Pelinka said about this player. Next player." Does he have a reputation as a good agent? A hard bargainer?
  • I do not know what his reputation is in terms of WP:RS, but I do feel that the Boozer situation may be an indicator that he believes in getting his player what they are worth more than he believes in loyatly. In terms of whether he is good, I would imagine that if he has been able to be Kobe's agent he is pretty good. I don't think Kobe would put up with a so-so agent. I will try to find something about agent salaries from a WP:RS, but I believe they make 3-7% of their players' salaries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I found a source that says they make about 4%.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear a lot of work has gone into this, but it needs a lot of polish and further work to get up to FAC standards. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)