Jump to content

Talk:2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead issues
  • For the most part, the lead is pretty good, but the referencing is inconsistent. That is, you have some parts cited and others not cited. Either ref everything in there or make sure everything in the lead is in the article's body (and cited) and remove the citations.
dereffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence is a little too much editorializing. Here are a couple of suggestions:
    • Get rid of a few words there and say something like The 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season marked the continuation of competitive basketball among Big Ten Conference members that began in 1904. (since basketball is normally an annual tradition of nearly every single college basketball team in the U.S.)
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season marked the 105th season of competitive basketball in the Big Ten Conference. (Sounds more concise and "hooky" enough without the editorialization; hopefully I have the number "105th" right)
Prose issues
  • "Watch list" or "watchlist"? You include both in there; please stick to one consistent spelling. Same with "Top-30" vs "Top 30".
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "USBWA" subsection, it seems like you can just get rid of the "District II" and "District VI" empty lists and just make a note in the prose that all the Big Ten players selected were from District V.
They were included just so that the formatting is the same every year. In addition, their inclusion provides information on which states the districts encompassed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. –MuZemike 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure print sources including in the citations (such as Sporting News) are italicized; not all of them are after doing a quick spot-check.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I may be being overly nitpicky here) On the citations that are from the Big Ten Conference (published by CBS Interactive) I would think one should include |work=''[[Big Ten Conference]]'' (italic symbols to undo the automatic italicization). However, it's no big deal if you choose not to add that in there, but I would think it would be more informative to readers that all of those sources are coming from the Big Ten.
I don't think that is much better since the Big Ten is not a published work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Not a big deal here. –MuZemike 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very last sentence in the article ("2010 NBA Draft") is a sentence fragment.
Punctuation fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability issues
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should have said the AP pre-season rankings, which is the reference before that one. That is, the coaches' poll is there but not the AP poll. Sorry about the mix-up. –MuZemike 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing sourcing anything for the ACC – Big Ten Challenge.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the CoSIDA requirements is not in the citation given ([3], which just describes the recipients of the award)
I thought it was in there. I added a ref with the criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it now. I was expecting it to be at the beginning and not at the end. –MuZemike 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other suggestions

(Note: not really part of the GA review but more of an aside)

That is against WP:WPCBB policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MoS guidelines for non-breaking spaces normally require the addition of non-breaking spaces between date numbers and month names (i.e. October 29) and for things with Roman numerals (i.e. "NCAA Division I").
You taught me something on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to list the same citation twice in a row (like near the end of "Regular season - November"). Just list the citation once at the end of what is being cited.
We have about a dozen facts being backed up by 8 different sources. The fact that two unrelated sequential facts are backed up by the same source does not make it really a redundant citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using WebCite for many of these links as I have feeling many of them will expire in a short period of time (a few already have, which I mentioned above)
Conclusions

On hold pending improvments to the issues brought up above. –MuZemike 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed Nice job. –MuZemike 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_Big_Ten_Conference_men%27s_basketball_season&oldid=1196555654"