Jump to content

Talk:2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_Big_Ten_Conference_men%27s_basketball_season/GA2&oldid=402906179"