Talk:2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA1

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick this up. I'm going to give it a thorough read through and return with some thoughts. My first impression was that the references and citations look excellent -- much better than the average GA candidate -- but that the prose needs a lot of work to ensure conciseness, clarity and grammatical correctness. I also believe it has some MoS issues that should be addressed. I'll be back after a more thorough reading.--Batard0 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no!!! If you are going to make your sentence by sentence suggestions, why don't you just do a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do that, but I think the article could use more than just a copyedit. It's good stuff: the refs are all there, which is pretty rare. But I think the lead section needs a restructuring of sorts to comply with the MoS guidelines requiring it to be a concise summary of the article. It's four paragraphs long. That said, this GA has been awaiting a review for some time, so I presume some material has been added by various users since. It might be worth taking a quick look before we get started, but I'll make some general suggestions in a bit. --Batard0 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First take My first inclination was not to list the article because of the amount of work that I believe needs to be done. That said, I'm aware of the fact that this has been in the queue for a long time, and I think it would be unfair to not list it without giving you the opportunity to improve it. With enough effort, I think we can get it into shape in a reasonable amount of time. I'm more than happy to do a thorough copyedit to save time, but first I'd like to see two things happen, if you're up for it: Once we sort these two issues out, I will do a full copyedit, and I think we won't be too far away from meeting the criteria.--Batard0 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead should be more concise. This is an MoS:Lead issue. The lead now goes to four paragraphs; I'd like to see it reduced to perhaps three paragraphs and made into a simple synopsis of the season. The level of detail is commendable, but we can save that for later in the body of the article. I'm reluctant to make this edit myself, since I think I'd have to rewrite it substantially and it's a bit of a conflict of interest for me to do that. I would pay special attention to the second paragraph, which jumps around in time a bit. Overall, I'd advise making the lead simple, snappy and strictly chronological. Just the essentials.
 * I've shortened the LEAD from 2451 characters to 1926 characters and from 4 to 3 paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The article should be checked over for tense issues. The team is sometimes described in the present tense or the present perfect tense, despite that its season is over. This includes in the very first sentence of the article. Everything should be in the past. This is a grammar issue that probably carries over from the article's development as the season progressed. It shouldn't be hard to fix.
 * I have attempted to fix the tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go in and do a copyedit now. This may take some time, so bear with me.--Batard0 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done a full copyedit, fixing grammatical errors and making the prose clearer and more concise where necessary. Please have a look and let me know if you disagree with anything. There are still some outstanding issues, however, as follows:


 * First an observation: articles should style numbers consistently. I've fixed all of them (I think) so that the numbers nine and below are spelled out and those above use numerals (three, third, but 13, 13th). Exceptions to the rule are of course made when dealing with scores and records (8–3, not eight–three or eight to three). In a couple of instances, sentences started with bare numbers. These should be rephrased or, if absolutely necessary, spelled out (Seventy-nine players made the roster; but better: The roster included 79 players.) I fixed them. The main point here is to ensure internal consistency.
 * Shouldn't the section about the 2012-13 recruits come after the main "Schedule and results" and "NBA draft" sections? This is clearly about the season after the one under discussion, and thus I think it fits better at the end of the article rather than the beginning.
 * I have created a roster changes section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is better. Well done. A minor quibble, but what do you think about moving the "Rankings" section to directly follow the "Schedule and results" section? It seems to me that rankings are directly tied to performance in the season, and thus should be grouped with the table about performance during the season. Not a big deal, though.--Batard0 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the prose at the end of the Roster section, I'd recommend deleting the first sentence, since this information already appears in the roster box. The rest of it borders on unnecessary detail, in my view.
 * You are requesting that I remove the prose that documents the assistant coaches. That is information that is important enough to appear on two or three (three for national champions) templates so it must be included in the prose in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying here that common sense says it's redundant to have a box that includes the names of assistants Jeff Meyer, LaVall Jordan and Bacari Alexander and then have a sentence directly underneath saying, "Beilein's staff included assistants Jeff Meyer, LaVall Jordan, and Bacari Alexander." I don't know of a guideline that says information that appears in templates must appear in the main text. I'd be interested in seeing it if you can find it...and if there is such a thing I'm happy to leave it in.--Batard0 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think of reviewers who say that everything in the infobox should be included in the text with proper citations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I think of that. By this logic, we also would need to include Eso Akunne, Jon Horford, Blake McLimans, Jordan Morgan and anyone else who isn't described and cited in the main text. My issue is that we list some assistant coaches in the box and then say directly below the box that they were assistant coaches. Is this not repetitious? I wouldn't object if you put citations next to their names in the box itself, but repeating them seems extraneous. If there's a guideline somewhere (in the Wikiproject maybe?) that requires all info box items to be repeated and referenced in the text, I'd like to see it.--Batard0 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I said infobox. What do you think of reviewers who say that everything in the infobox should be included in the text with proper citations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I might get it now: are we saying that the infobox is in the lead section, and thus per the MoS:Lead, that information must be repeated in the body of the article? Assuming that's the case, though, isn't this information already in the Roster box (in the body of the article)? The thing I fundamentally don't get is why we have a Roster box with a few peoples' names in it, and then a repetition of those names directly below the box. I don't think we're reaching an agreement here, so I'm going to put this up for a second opinion. Hopefully that'll resolve the issue.--Batard0 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When we talk about Douglass at the end of the Season section, I think we need to spell out his name; we can't expect readers to refer to the roster. I'd say something like: "Stu Douglass, a senior team co-captain, concluded the season as the school's all-time leader in games played, with 136."
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2012 NBA draft section goes into unnecessary detail. Some aspects of the Burke draft drama are interesting and pertinent, but we need to use summary style here. The fact is that Burke didn't end up declaring for the draft, so it's unnecessary to explain every twist and turn that led up to that decision. The way we have it now, we're setting up readers to expect him to enter the draft, and it comes as a surprise when he doesn't. I would suggest a reworking of this section that summarizes the main points: Burke first said he was not inclined to enter the draft, but appeared to reverse course before ultimately deciding to return for another year. The controversies are relevant, but there's an excess of detail.--Batard0 (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like I chopped to much out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you can reinstate some of it (maybe two or three more sentences that talk about the Twitter controversy, or whatever you prefer), just not the whole blow-by-blow account.--Batard0 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is good with me. Sums it up without an overwhelming amount of detail.--Batard0 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The links in the External links section need a little more explanation. There's one that just says "stats" (in lowercase).--Batard0 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Having said these things, I think it's getting closer to meeting the GA criteria.--Batard0 (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To the second opinion editor: I'm having difficulty resolving a question about the Roster section of the article. The Roster box lists three assistant coaches, who are then described in text directly below the box, with a citation. They're also listed in the article's infobox. I have argued that the inclusion of the names directly below the roster box is unnecessarily repetitious. The nominator says this is a requirement because information in the infobox must be repeated and cited in the body of the article. See discussion above. Thanks for the help. --Batard0 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the infobox is part of the WP:LEAD and the LEAD serves as a summary of the article. It is policy that everything in the LEAD is suppose to be properly cited in the article and presented in the main body of the article with at least as much, if not more, detail as is in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just cite the roster box? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body and the infobox is part of the LEAD, do you think presenting something in the template makes it part of the main body that the LEAD is suppose to summarize.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an aside here, but independent of the question at hand (i.e. whether the inclusion of these names in the Roster box constitutes their inclusion in the body of the article), I wanted to point out that the precise language in the Manual of Style is as follows: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" (emphasis mine). I think there's an argument that the names of assistant coaches may not constitute significant information in the context of the 2011-12 Michigan Wolverines season, and thus there is not in fact a requirement under the MoS to include them in the remainder of the article. The fact that they are not mentioned in the main text of the lead is in itself evidence of their insignificance relative to other information about the season.--Batard0 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think any information that requires a citation is significant.--15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't necessarily require a citation under WP:V because it is neither being challenged nor is likely to be challenged: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." The fact that there exist reliable sources that back it up satisfies WP:V: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." (emphasis in original) I'm going to step aside now, though, and let other reviewers look at it. I'm glad to go along with whatever others determine is correct.--Batard0 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think the template is part of the main body. Therefore, I don't think the additional sentence is necessary.Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence about the assistant coaches. However, the template has a built in roster URL function. I don't think I should also cite the template in addition to this URL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That suffices. The link within the roster box is citation enough, in any event.--Batard0 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria After some substantial improvements, the article meets GA criteria.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The prose is far from perfect, but it is reasonably well written and hence satisfies this criterion. There are no grammar and spelling errors.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * It complies with basic MoS guidelines.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * References to sources are there.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Citations are good.
 * C. No original research:
 * No OR here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * It covers the main aspects of the topic.
 * B. Focused:
 * It goes into substantial detail in some areas, but still meets the focus criterion.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It's neutral.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * It's stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * The images are appropriately tagged or in commons.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The images are appropriate for the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It meets GA criteria, but it'll need a major amount of further work if it is to progress any further.