Talk:1912–13 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Well-written
 * Prose clear, concise, and understandable ✅ (Fixed) Article linking will help this article. For instance, not all readers will know what a jump ball is.  Linking to jump ball will guide the reader to the content to understand.
 * Spelling/grammar ✅ (Fixed). Several spelling and grammar errors in the article, for example "Representatives from each school met in Raleigh, North Carolina at the Yarborough Hotel where they elected officers including North Carolina's manager R. O. Hufmann becoming president" (the phrase "becoming president" is misplaced) and "The writer further mentioned that several students had been playing on the outdoor courts that were set–up and would provide good opportunities to find new members as well as good competition" (unclear exactly what the modifier "to find new members ..." refers to - the players themselves, or playing outside). I'm not convinced that "Guard" as a basketball position in the first sentence of "Roster and schedule" should be capitalized.  These are just examples, not a comprehensive list.  A lot of copy edit issues exist in the article.
 * MOS lead  The lead is designed to give a short summary.  The lead in this article gets into way too much detail.  A lot of the information in the lead, like the attempted formation of the basketball league, would be better off in the main body of the article.  For examples on good sports team leads, look at some of the recent NCAA season pages, like 2018–19 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team.  Obviously, you can't include all of the sort of information from that article (the NCAA tournament did not exist in 1912-13), but that's the sort of setup a good lead should have.
 * Per the conversation from BlueMoonset on the 1911-12 UNC review you're doing, the lede is properly done and covers the major points that are touched on in the article, so I don't think these changes are necessary to the lede. Especially since the topics that are covered in the lede are rewritten. Disc Wheel  ( T  +  C ) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in the review over at the 1911-12 UNC page, but after reading the conversation at that page, I've changed my mind on the lead. ✅ on lead. Hog Farm (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I had both tabs open and definitely just got very confused, please forgive me! Got it twisted that you were reviewing both articles. :)
 * MOS layout ✅ I find the long paragraphs hard to read, but this might just be a me thing.  Subsections might help.  For instance, a lower-level heading could be used to make a subsection for the information on the attempted basketball league.
 * Buzzwords/fiction/lists/tables ✅ (Fixed) The tables for the roster and schedule are placed next to each other in the version my computer brings up, knocking part of the schedule table off of the page. The tables should be arranged in a way they can fit on the page if possible.

2. Verifiable
 * I removed the column setting from the tables to solve the overlap issues, if you don't like how it looks now, feel free to change it back. Hog Farm (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No OR ✅ Article is thoroughly sourced and referenced.
 * List of references properly formatted I'm not familiar with Newspapers.com, but while I can access the handful of clippings I have linked to, I see references to signing in and logging in.  The links in the references are marked as open source.  I'm not familiar enough with this source to tell if open source is accurate or not.  Is this website open source?
 * Inline citations are from reliable sources ✅
 * No COPYVIO ✅ Thoroughly sourced, and the references I have checked up on are paraphrased and properly cited.

3. Broad in coverage
 * Covers main aspects ✅ The season is thoroughly covered.
 * Stays on topic ✅ This article gets into some really granular details. For instance, the dates when the practice goals were set up, or the fact that somebody shot the ball backwards over his head.  The fine detail is nice is some places, but a trimming is probably due. Also acceptable

4. Neutral ✅

5. Stable ✅

6. Illustrated if possible
 * Media tagged for copyright status ✅ public domain
 * Media relevant ✅


 * Only one image, but there's not really any other images that could be added to this article


 * THanks for the review! I'll get to work shortly, left one comment above. Disc Wheel  ( T  +  C ) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the fixing of the table already! The references for Newspaper.com are properly done. As for the minor details, I would like to keep them in the article since there is so little coverage of the season by books and newspapers. Just feels weird to be getting rid of the unique coverage related to their basketball season when there's so little, where as I could understand something as trivial being irrelevant for a modern day article especially since goals are up 24/7. What do you think?
 * Otherwise, I think I got all the issues you have outlined with the article. I made the subsection for the basketball league, my only issue is that I wrote the roster and schedule section in chronological order, so it does feel kinda of funny to reorganize it. But let me know what you think and if you need me to correct anything further or if I missed anything! Disc Wheel  ( T  +  C ) 07:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great work! I'm going to pass the article now. Hog Farm (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)