Talk:Denard Robinson/GA2

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I will be reviewing your article. It clearly represents a lot of work.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * consider clarifying the "one of the four or five best guys in the Big Ten." quote with a [football players running track] or [sprinter] depending on what you think he was saying. I can't tell from the source what was the basis of comparison. If you can't tell either, perhaps take out the quote.
 * I believe I have fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. Racepacket (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Footnotes 69 and 77 are dead links.
 * These are articles from major media outlets (Washington Post and AP). The sources remain valid and should remain.  But I will go ahead and remove the links, as the outlets are no longer making the articles available for free access.  Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Do you want to mention that the coach was fired after the Bowl game and say who won the 2010 Heisman trophy? You might want to incorporate some of the considerations discussed in http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/06/former-coach-uncertain-of-denard-robinsons-michigan-future/.
 * There has been a lot of speculation that Robinson might leave Michigan if he is unhappy with the coaching change. We already have discussion in the "2011 Gator Bowl" section about his post-game comments.  Since this is all speculation right now, I'm a little hesitant to include it in the article.  It all seems a little "message board"-ish until something factual happens.  I agree, though, that this should be monitored.  If Robinson makes any announcement, it will need to added.  As for saying who won the 2010 Heisman Trophy, I'm ambivalent.  My goal over the past month has been to condense/focus the article to get rid of some of the extraneous information that is not directly relevant to Robinson.  I'm fine either way on mentioning that Cam Newton won the award. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in your response to the allegation that the game-by-game coverage is so detailed that it renders the article "unfocused."
 * I think this was previously a valid criticism. During the last GA review, the article was in substantial flux and included length sections with summaries of each game. I agreed with that criticism.  After the regular season ended, I went back and substantially condensed the game-by-game coverage.  That said, Robinson's 2010 season was one of the most extraordinary in NCAA history.  I believe the treatment of the 2010 season has now been appropriately trimmed and focused, but I'm open to suggestions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Has he announced whether he will run indoor or outdoor track in 2011?
 * I have seen no indications one way or the other on this. Unless and until he has a notable achievement during the 2011 track season, I think a separate section on the "2011 track season" is premature. Accordingly, I have removed the brief stub of a section for now.  Given the fact that he is not one of the country's elite track athletes, I wonder whether a year-by-year approach to his track seasons is appropriate.  It may be that a single section on his college track endeavors would be preferable. Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a policy decision was reached that the starting quarterback should not also run track, please state. Otherwise, you can leave it open-ended. Racepacket (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we go back to having the article say that the track season started with no statement about Robinson? here is the first track recap. No mention of Robinson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest holding off and leaving it as is unless/until we know he's on the team. Even then, I think a single track section is sufficient since he's not really known for his track competition. Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since he is not on the official roster it is clear that he is not currently on the track team. Racepacket (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mention that he is enrolled in the UM School of Kinesiology.
 * Done. Cbl62 (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * no edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Did you check for an available image?
 * Yes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article sorely needs an image. I have searched for a public domain image without success. Hopefully, someone will be able to add one soon. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing article on hold.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing article on hold.
 * Placing article on hold.

Since we have a captive third party. Could you please render an opinion on
 * 1) Should succession boxes be in this article? Such boxes exist in numerous articles such as WP:FA Tyrone Wheatley and WP:GA Brandon Graham (American football). (see here)
 * I removed the succession box (which you added today) for Michigan quarterbacks. There is already a navbox included at the bottom of the page for that.  Recent consensus at the College Football Project indicates that we should not have both a succession box and a navbox for the same thing.  So that one had to go.  The others seem like clutter-creating overkill to me.  Succession boxes should be limited to major awards/records.  The only examples I have seen for the succession boxes that you added are two Michigan football articles that you created.  None of the other college football articles for player having these achievements have such succession boxes.  Frankly, the Robinson article is already cluttered enough. Finally, if you want to develop consensus, this discussion is better suited to the College Football Project talk page rather than a one-off GA discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior discussion about the proliferation of succession boxes in college and pro football articles can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. The consensus is developing against the proliferation of succession boxes. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A hostage will say anything to gain release from captivity, but I think we should avoid article clutter and that unlike an administrative or coaching position, performance as a college quarterback is so personal and without continuity that an successor box has little practical value. Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see little to no need for succession boxes here. WP:CFB has been moving hard against them. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Should the close voting of the Chicago Tribune Silver Football (see this edit).
 * Neither of those is really on point for major records. Should we start a discussion at WP:CFB or wait for our reviewer to render an opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the details of the voting on awards he received is needed. This article is already very long, and it's about a guy who is a college sophomore.  We need to be cognizant of size and growth potential.  It's not appropriate to include such extraneous details.  The fact that Robinson won the Silver Football trophy is important.  The fact that Terrell Pryor finished second or Joe Smith finished third may be relevant to articles about them.  But in the context of an article about Robinson, it is an unnecessary, extraneous detail.  Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, this is not a case of mentioning the runner-up. It is a case of clarifying that he barely won.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. So the voting was close. Voting is often close. That doesn't mean that we ought to identify the #2 or #3 finishers or give a vote count.  Robinson won the award, and that's the significant fact. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One approach would be to list the vote margin without naming the runners-up. There is no clear policy on this point. Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's getting into excessive details. It's sufficient to say that he won and give the citation; people who want to know more details can go read the cited article. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference in saying he narrowly won the Big Ten MVP and he narrowly won the Big Ten rushing title.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Also, there has been debate on the infoboxes inclusiong of his honorable mention all conference designation by the coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With an athlete like Robinson, there is a need for selectivity in which honors should be placed in the Infobox to avoid "Infobox bloat." Some honors are easy and should be included for anyone, e.g., first-team All-American, major award winner. Other honors should be excluded, e.g., "honorable mention" honors which fall below 1st team, 2nd team and even 3rd team honors. Other honors are in a grey area and should be evaluated in the context of the particular player so that the Infobox focuses on what's really important, e.g., All-Conference selections, major award finalist lists, etc. If you take a Hall of Fame player with four years of college honors and 15-20 years of NFL honors (e.g., Jerry Rice or Dan Marino), the Infobox will go on for more than a page if you included every minor "honorable mention" designation. If such minor honors are to be included at all, do so in the body of the article or in a list, but the Infobox needs to remain succinct.  If Robinson's Infobox is opened to such minor designations, it will be too unwieldy and will get much worse as he progresses through his junior and senior years. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By way of clarification, I have left the honorable mention All-American designations in the Infobox, even though I think they should eventually be removed. The ones I removed are honorable mention all-conference designations.  The Big Ten coaches have 24 players who are first-team All-Conference, 24 more who are second-team All-Conference, and almost 50 others who are "Honorable Mention" All-Conference.  See here.  At the QB position, the coaches picked a first-team QB (Persa), a second-team QB (Tolzein), and three more QBs (Pryor, Cousins and Robinson) got "Honorable Mention".  In a case such as this, Honorable Mention All-Big 10 honors (bestowed on the 50 players who don't rank in the top 2 at their positions in a conference) are not sufficiently important to include in an Infobox for a player like Denard Robinson. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's reach consusus and preserve stability. Racepacket (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cbl62 on this, honorable mention all-conference should not be in the infobox. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How can we address the remaining issues and wrap up this GA review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * January 9 reading:
 * Is there a better phrase than "statistical championships" which imply an acknowledged contest. Perhaps use "statistical record" instead?
 * Use "record" if it was in fact a record, otherwise use "statistical leader" or something like that. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a championship. It's a statistic, and he was the leader in that statistic. In some cases a statistical leader will also be a record-holder, but not always. cmadler (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've revised this to simply indicate he led the conference in the noted statistical categories. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although his major is listed in the infobox, do you want to mention it in the text as well. He's in the School of Kinesiology, not Engineering, etc.
 * "He was also selected by ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach as the Offensive MVP in its Mid-Season Awards.[87]" -> "He was also selected by Mark Schlabach as the Offensive MVP in ESPN.com's Mid-Season Awards.[87]"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Need ref for "2011 Gator Bowl, the most lopsided defeat ever suffered by Michigan in a bowl game. "
 * I added a citation. Cbl62 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, while we have a captive third party audience, what about moving to a three section 2010 season summary: Pre-conference, conference, and Bowl/Awards season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the existing headings. Sections on less significant games have already been combined.  The discussion of some of the games (e.g., Indiana, Notre Dame) are sufficiently lengthy that merging them artificially into the three sections would make the article difficult to navigate. Cbl62 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eventually, this is going to have to happen. If he has two years remotely similar to last season and then goes on to have a pro career, we are going to have to streamline the table of contents.  It can stand for now, but down the line something is going to have to give.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please address the above items highlighted in red within the next 48 hours so that we may conclude this review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)