Wikipedia:Peer review/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive2

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has now failed at WP:FAC twice and needs some text editing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this suppose to have an automated peer review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The automated tips in the toolbox in the right corner has that now. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am getting errors trying to open the automated tips.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the script chokes on the n-dash (hyphen?) in the article title. I ran it as (first time to log in to that account in months) and pasted it on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone else would review this since I did last time (fresh set of eyes, plus I am not great on sports articles). If no one else signs up in the next day, I will be glad to review it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it might be better to get a fresh set of eyes, although I appreciate your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will review Harris Theater instead. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: As usual with your articles, Tony, you have assembled an impressive amount of information. However, the organisation of the article is problematic, not to say somewhat headache-inducing for the general reader. Specifically:-
 * Clutter of images and tables near the beginning of the article. There are many more images than are necessary for reasonable illustration of the text; why not select two or three of the best?
 * Squeezing of text in Preview and Roster sections, arising from placement of tables and images
 * Unnecessary display of limited information in over-elaborate tables. Examples: The "incoming signees" table which looks very complicated and overdetailed; the "mid season transfer" table which looks to have only one entry; the "Rankings" table which gives limited, and totally unexplained, information. I would suggest that the info in these three tables could be briefly summarised in prose form, thus helping to some extent to solve the clutter problem and providing more scope for a rational placement of images.
 * Maybe it's just that I don't understand basketball, but I find it impossible to interpret either the headings or the figures in the table at the end of the "Statistical leadership" section. How much of this information is really necessary in a general encyclopedia article? The level of detail in the text preceding this table seems excessive, e.g two-and-a-half lines pondering on whether Harris should be placed first or second in the "free throw percentage" table, whatever that signifies. I think it's all part of the problem of including too much detail. It is possible to cover a subject comprehensively while still maintaining a summary style.

I haven't looked at the prose beyond the lead (which is generally OK), and before I do so I would welcome some response from you on the above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wish I could get a sports reviewer. These tables are fairly standard in college sports team season articles now. The Harris quibble is essential.  I had hoped to get PR feedback on this earlier.  Now I am getting into crunch time for a presentation that I am going to start preparing for Meetup/Chicago 3.1‎. Let me get back to you early next week on the other issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)