Talk:Brad Stevens/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Crap, I totally forgot about this (I only saw it again by idly checking my raw watchlist). Sorry I haven't been by to post a review in the last nearly week. Will do so immediately. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is generally quite good. Some minor MOS issues - contractions are present in the article, and there's inconsistency in usage spelled-out numbers vs. numerals. Other minor issues that I'll be more able to articulate when it's not twenty to midnight. I will be back to this article tomorrow, I promise. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries about the "slow" review. I have corrected the contraction issue - the remaining ones are direct quotes.  I'll address the numbering issue later today.  I also have to make a slight factual correction in regards to the Hugh Durham award which I've been meaning to get to the last couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Images all look good. One is copyrighted, but seems to have a suitable fair use rationale. They could all use ALT text, though. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ALT text added. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs a little tweaking, which I'll do myself. Stevens should not be referred to in the alt text of the first image, for example (it should say something like "a man in his early thirties wearing a suit jacket...."). Later in the article, when Stevens has been sufficiently described in the prose, he can be referred to directly. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm certainly no expert on ALT text, having done it only once before this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a whole prose review typed out last night and then my computer crashed. Oi. I'll save it in sections this time around. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, here goes:
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to write a thorough review. I have taken the vast majority of your suggestions, but I have questions/need to do some research on a few.  My replies to each suggestion are inline below. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the postseason, Stevens coached Butler to the first Elite Eight and Final Four  in school history. A bit redundant, isn't it? If they made the Final Four, obviously they made the Elite Eight, and no one builds a resume on how many Elite Eights they've made. I suspect this is probably a relic from when the article was being updated as Butler progressed through the tournament.
 * Yes, if they made the Final Four, they also made the Elite Eight. However, just because it was the first Final Four doesn't mean it was also the first Elite Eight.  Thus it is two separate firsts.  Perhaps it isn't that important and can be dropped, but it definitely two separate things.
 * It's true that their first Final Four isn't necessarily their first Elite Eight. If they had lost in the Elite Eight, first Elite Eight might bear mentioning, but I think it's stronger just to say Final Four. The Final Four is much more...I dunno, culturally significant than the Elite Eight.


 * His teams are exceptionally well prepared and quietly confident. Exceptionally? Is that sourced (somewhere)? Otherwise, it is not NPOV. Similarly with "tough" in the next sentence.
 * I have rephrased to stick closer to what the body says.


 * His father would drive him to Bloomington to watch Indiana Hoosiers games. I generally prefer the simple past to the conditional, though that's mostly a personal preference. The conditional sounds better when there's some kind of time reference in it - maybe His father would often drive him to Bloomington to watch Indiana Hoosiers games. Just a thought.
 * Added "often"


 * For his eighth birthday, Stevens received a brand new basketball hoop. "brand" seems like a dead wood word in this sentence (meaning it's just taking up space)
 * Of course "brand new" and "new" don't always mean the same thing, but in this case I agree.


 * Stevens had set school records for career scoring, assists, steals, and three-point field goals. As of 2010, three of those records still stand, including the scoring record. Surely it would be simpler to just say which records stand directly?
 * Agreed


 * averaged more than 8 points per game 3 of his 4 years "8 points" is debatable (countable quantities), but I'm pretty sure "3 of 4" should be "three of four"
 * I left 8 and change 3/4. Otherwise the next sentence ("His career highs were 24 points and 8 rebounds in a game.") would have to be rewritten 24 points and eight rebounds which just looks weird to me.

Going to save here to make sure it posts. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * then long-time girlfriend Tracy Wilhelmy I think this hyphen is misplaced. "then" is a modifier, and "longtime" is an adjective itself.
 * fixed


 * The position had opened up after assistant coach Jamal Meeks resigned after being arrested on solicitation and drug charges. (He was later acquitted.) Clunky. ,of which he was later acquitted would seem to flow better.
 * OK


 * Collier was in complete agreement Wordy. Why not just Collier agreed ?
 * That whole sentence has always seemed awkward to me... I change it to "Collier, having spent the entire season observing the assistant coaches' interaction with the team, agreed." Does that work better?
 * Sure.


 * Butler was awarded the 7 seed in the East Regional. They beat tenth-seeded South Alabama 81–61 in the opening round Number usage certainly needs to be consistent when they're this close together. Also, the "opening round" is the play-in game. A 7/10 game occurs in the first round. There is a distinct difference.
 * I have changed all the seed numbers throughout the article to use words


 * and became the fourth winningest first year coach. "Winningest" ? Is that a word?
 * M-W lists it. The alternative: "forth most winning"(?) sounds worse, IMO.  Perhaps a complete re-word would be best?
 * OK. It just stuck out like a sore thumb to me.

After further review, it appears they "only" tied the record this year. I have updated the article to state this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Butler was nationally ranked for a school and league record 19 consecutive weeks. Do those still stand? If not, that bears mentioning.
 * I'm pretty sure they were surpassed this year, but I'll have to double check on that.
 * Looks good.


 * Stevens defied expectations, again winning the regular season Horizon championship with a 25–4 (15–3 in conference) record. This doesn't logically flow. The coach won the league championship?
 * Rephrased


 * Doc Meanwell did it in 51 games at Wisconsin. Clair Bee at Rider, Bill Carmody at Princeton, and Bill Guthridge at North Carolina all reached the mark in 55 games.[23] Buck Freeman also reached the milestone in his 56th game at St. John's Focused? And if this is to remain, wikilinking Bill Guthridge twice is unnecessary.
 * I agree it was unnecessary and have dropped it entirely. The alternate would be simply to list the people w/o the number of games required.

Another intermediate save. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And boy am I glad I've been intermediate saving....


 * Butler won its first three games, before heading to the 76 Classic for its first real test.[28] [28] is just a team schedule, so "its first real test" seems a little POV.
 * Changed to "for its first game against a ranked opponent"


 * twenty-second ranked Minnesota Another number/numeral oddity, especially as 10th in the Coaches' Poll and 11th in the AP Poll appears a bit earlier. Same for nineteenth ranked Clemson and then-thirteenth ranked Georgetown. I also don't really like then in that construction as these rankings are obviously referring to the rank at the time of the game.
 * I changed all the rankings to use numbers since that is the normal way it is done in news articles. I also removed the use of the word "then".


 * Three days after the Xavier game, the team lost for what would become the last time in the regular season "what would become" are more dead wood words. I'd just take them out entirely.
 * I think the different tense does change the feel slightly, but not much, so I took the words out.


 * Is Indiana Collegiate Conference a likely future article? It's got a smattering of inbound links, but I'd like to make sure.
 * It definitely should have an article (lasted 20+ years), but I have no idea how likely one will be written soon.
 * Okay.


 * I'm not really sure what's under the 2009-10 fits the "focused" criterion for GA.
 * My thinking is that his most of his notoriety stems from those 6 games in March, esp. the last 3. (The page views agree w/that assessment.) Some of the details can probably go, but I'd like to keep enough context to show how some of his decisions helped win the games. So, I can trim it some, but how much do you have in mind?
 * Understand, I'm not claiming undue weight here. Certainly, this deserves a lot of attention in the article, but paragraphs like The second half was played very closely, with neither team taking a lead larger than two points until a Brian Zoubek layup put Duke up 47–43 with 12:27 remaining. With 3:16 to play, Duke took a 60–55 lead on two made free throws by Nolan Smith. A Matt Howard layup made it a 60–57 game with 1:44 remaining. Smith missed a layup for Duke and Howard got another layup for Butler. After a Duke timeout, Kyle Singler missed an open jump shot with 36 seconds remaining, giving Butler a chance to retake the lead. However, Butler was unable to initiate their offense. Stevens called a timeout to setup a play, but the team was forced to call their last timeout when Gordon Hayward was unable to get the ball in-bounds. After the timeout, Hayward missed a baseline fade-away jumper and Zoubek came down with the rebound. Butler fouled Zoubek with less than 4 seconds remaining. He made the first foul shot and then intentionally missed the second. Hayward's desperation half-court shot court bounced off the backboard and then the rim, before missing by mere inches.[58] among others, have almost nothing to do with Stevens himself. They're about the team, and like I said, it's good information that would belong in (and I suspect is already present in) 2009–10 Butler Bulldogs men's basketball team, but frankly, if there's nothing citeable with regards to what Stevens himself did for most of the season/tournament/Final Four/title game, I could stand to see almost all of it go.


 * but is himself not interested in self promotion Redundant usages of "self"
 * dropped "himself"

I haven't been able to find anything source-able about his religion. I suppose I could drop the second-half of the quote if you think it confuses things. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Asked what his life would be like if he had never taken up coaching, he replies "If everything else remained the same, I would have been as happy as heck... Friends and family and faith, they're going to take the cake over all this stuff." Is Stevens religious? It isn't discussed anywhere in the article, but this quote suggests so.
 * I don't know really. He has spoken at churches a few times and makes occasional references to faith, but I haven't read anything concrete...  I'll see what I can find.
 * I don't know if it confuses things, but it naturally raises the question of whether Stevens is religious. Someone's religious faith, or lack thereof, usually merits mentioning in a bio article if it's known.

Save point! Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MOS compliance: Really, the number/numeral thing is the only concern left.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused: I'd like to see the 2009-10 section trimmed a little. It's good info, but it doesn't belong in this article.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: ALT text would be nice.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Not just yet, but I'm sure we'll get there.  Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I am going to add a few lines about the "celebrity attention" he has received recently. I also need to clarify the Hugh Durham award info.  I'll post again after I do that and research the couple points from above that need clarification. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed most of the your concerns now and added a few things. I have cut a couple sentences from the 2010 playoff games, but I await further guidance on this issue. See my explanation above as to why I included so much info on this area to begin with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cut another 2.5k from the 2009-10 season. Hopefully that gives it better focus.  Let me know if it still needs some work, or if any other issues remain.  Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I'll pass the article now. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)