Talk:2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA2
GA Review 2
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any comments regarding the review below. Vicenarian (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Review Result = On Hold
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Excellent article, full of detail, great images.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Well written, no grammar issues.
- B. MoS compliance:
- The lead section is extremely long and overly detailed. It should be simplified, and the detailed information contained therein moved into the body of the article. Also consider moving the roster to the bottom of the article, and keeping text regarding the team at the top. The layout of the images on the page could use some work as well.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Many sources, including ESPN, CBS; well-known and reliable.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Excellent and thorough use of citations.
- C. No original research:
- None apparent.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Good coverage of all aspects of the team and its season.
- B. Focused:
- The article may be TOO detailed, making it slightly less approachable for nonexperts in the topic. Consider some trimming, but overall, this will not cause a fail.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV respected.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Article stable since nomination.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Wealth of excellent images, most free.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Relevant, well-captioned.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- On hold for edits mentioned in 1b. Once complete, article will pass.
- Pass or Fail:
Vicenarian (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have shortened the LEAD significantly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. There are a few broken references now, though. Any thought regarding the pictures? I was thinking if they were moved to the right side of the roster boxes, that would make the section look a little cleaner. Vicenarian (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Broken references?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed one ref. The other seems to be the result of the closing of the newspaper. I converted the ref to a print format although I have never seen the print version of the story.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- The broken refs I found were fixed by a bot. I also moved the top five scorers image above the roster, which makes the images and tables fit together perfectly. The article looks great now, excellent work! Vicenarian (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Broken references?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. There are a few broken references now, though. Any thought regarding the pictures? I was thinking if they were moved to the right side of the roster boxes, that would make the section look a little cleaner. Vicenarian (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Review Result = Pass
[edit]PASS With the edits made, the article is now GA material. --Vicenarian (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)