Talk:2–3 zone defense

Comments

Peer Review by Hillary: I was extremely impressed by your page! In general, I have a few comments, questions, and suggestions

Strengths: - really good use of organization (good use of titles like advantages, disadvantages, etc) - clear definition of the term (even a non-basketball player, like myself, was able to really understand the concept) - impressed by writing and clear sentences - language very professional, non-biased - very credible, used lots of citations

Suggestions/ways to expand: - I think a use of a visual would add a lot to help explain the concept, clarify misunderstanding - not sure if you can put videos, but you could do an external link to youtube or something to show the defense in action - maybe to make it more interesting you could do a section on teams that are famous for using this defense? coaches that are infamous for it? Heharper (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is without a doubt very well written. Overall, the article flows well as a result of its clear and comprehensive organization and generally good grammar. The article does a good job of explaining a fairly specialized strategy to the masses who do not necessarily have any previous experience with similar concepts. There is no bias and good amount of sources to back it up. I find it hard to suggest ways to improve upon the article. Maybe, google 2-3 zone defense and find a good image to aid the reader's imagination. Or briefly expanding on different offensive strategies it can be used against. All in all, good job. --Hturley (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well formatted and informative. I think the organiztion is appropriate as it moves from an overview of the 2-3 zone into more specific strengths and weaknesses of this particular defensive strategy. I have some recommendations, however, starting with maybe linking some of the positions discussed in this article (such as guards, forwards, etc.) to their respective subsections in the "Basketball position" article on wikipedia. This would explain to readers exactly what you are describing without needing any long, drawn-out position explanation within your actual article. Furthermore, I feel that a section providing information on particualr programs or coaches (on whatever level...college, pro, etc.) who are known for implementing the zone would really help with the notability of this article. By linking information given here to biographical articles on famous coaches or successful teams/programs you would help readers to learn exactly why the 2-3 zone is important and give concrete examples of its notability. I know Jim Boeheim at Syracuse University utilizes the 2-3 zone as a hallmark of his defense, maybe you could start there? Wikipedia is most effective when links provide readers with many options to continue research when reading articles.

I additionally think that some sort of graphic or video-link would clear up the somewhat confusing example given about how the 2-3 zone would hypothetically work. Although your writing is clear, an image would be very helpful in explaining this strategy. Could some history on why the zone has become a popular defense (i.e. which coaches popularized it or successfully promoted it) be given? Also maybe you could inculde a "See also" section with links to other wikipedia pages describing other basketball defensive strategies such as "man-to-man" or "1-3-1 zone" as points of comparison. There is no discerable bias or lack of references in this article, however more in-text citations would help the reader know exactly where your information is comming from. Overall, this article is well concieved and very well done! Barrettgholland (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What links here

Shouldn't there be a link to this article in Zone defense?

Also: shouldn't the section headers use sentence case, especially "How to Play …", "Key Points of Emphasis", and "Breaking Down …" -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]