Talk:2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Edit to lead
The edit summary box wasn't large enough to hold the entire edit summary, so for my recent edit:

Identifying the most recent year they were 16–0 is relevant, but identifying that they won a conference championship in that year is not essential to the point, especially given that the bulk of those wins were non-conference games. It is even less relevant to include the information that the team won the regular season championship in the prior year. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the editorial help. I am on board with all your changes except this one. The point of the statement is to contextualize which historical Michigan Team we are talking about. At one point it said the last team to successfully defend a Big Ten Championship as compared to the last team to win a National Championship. Now it says last repeat Big Ten Champion, which is a different emphasis but the same point. Basically, this team matched all the great Michigan teams of the past 1985–86, 1988–89, 1991–92 and 1992–93 in various ways.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not persuaded, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to push back.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Injury - identify, or better yet, remove
I assume the reference in the lead to an injury contributing to losing three out of four games was the injury to  Jon Horford. (Hardaway's injury was around the same time, leading to some small confusion). My first thought was to include the name, but now I'm thinking differently. You seriously think an injury to a non-starter who managed 4 points in his last full game against Binghamton, and zero points in his prior game is that note-worthy? I don't know the team, but this sounds like a stretch. While it looks like he is more in for defense, he's not a starter, or even a 20 minute sixth player. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The injury was to starter and Big Ten All-Defensive team selectee Jordan Morgan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, and for adding the name. I originally thought the injury was being used to explain the first loss to OSU. I now think that was my misreading, but that's why I searched for injuries prior to the game, and missed the reference to Morgan later. Missing Morgan is worth the mention.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No paragraph break?
The prose transitions from the B1G tournament to the NCAA Tournament without even a paragraph break? I gather it is because the conference tournament discussion was only two sentences, and it is usually not good form to have a two-sentence paragraph, but the NCAA Tournament is a major change in subject. I considered adding a paragraph break, but it might be better to expand the conference tournament discussion, and I'm not the best one to do that.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seemed wrong to have such a short paragraph by itself and the Big Ten Tournament was basically a big disappointment in the context of such a successful season. Any further text on the subject is sort of artificial, although if mandated to do so for a WP:FAC, I could expand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the challenge. I've never been a FAC reviewer, so am not the best one to comment, but I'll be surprised if it isn't suggested at that time.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Corey Person status
While it is clear that Corey Person started as a walk-on, I didn't find definitive sources stated whether he was or was not on scholarship for his fifth year. Many sources refer to him as a walk-on, I found none indicating that he received a scholarship, so I added his status to the roster box. If that information is wrong, the main text "and the return of walk-on Corey Person for a fifth year" needs to be corrected as well.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * understood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger
Wouldn't be better if this article is merged with its umbrella article, the Michigan Wolverines ?

I guess ANYONE can write an article about ANY particular year for ANY particular team for ANY sport and for ANY department/state of ANY country in ANY region of the world. But then is this in line with Wikipedia principles?

I believe under this tendency there is a huge risk that Wikipedia becomes a big, fat and sterile monster full of pretty English sentences about nothing else than rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.1.78 (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)