Jump to content

Talk:2009 Big Ten Conference football season/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: WFCforLife (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the association football season task force, I was keen to take a look at content from another sport. My initial reaction is:


  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
    The article on the whole is well written, but there were a few phrases which affected understanding, such as inconsistency that might cause confusion and incorrect tense in places. Generally they'll be pretty easy to fix, I'll list them when I do my full review.
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    I didn't look closely enough for this to definitively tick it off. Nothing struck me as particularly needing to be cited that wasn't, so I'll probably tick this off pretty soon.
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    No real problems here. There are a couple of things I think could do with very slight expansion, for a reader who has no knowledge of the sport/American sport in general. I'll explain these in my fuller review.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. I certainly wouldn't fail the article on this point. But given how well attended these matches are, I just thought I'd ask whether it was possible to obtain a couple of free images via flickr, or if there are some already on the commons.
    I just added the co-MVPs. I will look for some more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. If you have aspirations for a future FAC it might be worth going for a few more, but that does the job for me. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it shouldn't be too difficult to get this up to the GA mark. I'll post my real review at some point over the next 24 hours. I've got this watchlisted, but if for some reason I take much longer than a day to post it, feel free to drop me a reminder on my talk page. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments

[edit]

Lead

  • Getting to the point is a good thing, but the introduction is very abrupt. Perhaps the detail about this being the 114th Big Ten season could be brought forward to the opening sentence, along with the fact that it's Ohio's 34th Big Ten. Something along the lines of:
The 2009 Big Ten Conference football season was the 114th for the conference, and saw Ohio State conclude the regular season as champion for the 5th consecutive time, their 34th Big Ten title. This earned them the conference's...
Great suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the use of "and", but something along these lines establishes historic context and delivers the important detail, whilst also easing into the article a bit more gently.

  • Do the individual days ("Thursday" and "Saturday") need to be specified in the lead?
    • 90% of college football games are played on Saturdays and these were played in the same week on different days. This is just for clarity although the assumption would be that the 10 games were played on Saturday. I can remove these if you feel it would be an improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that playing a showpiece event on a Thursday is somewhat unusual in itself (anywhere). Perhaps replace "on Saturday, September 5" with "two days later"? WFCforLife (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. WFCforLife (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous season, preseason and watchlists

Rankings through to schedule

Records against other conferences onwards

Outstanding comments

[edit]

Overall, a pretty interesting read with a nice structure. I'll keep this page watchlisted. As before, drop me a note on my talk page if I take a long time to reply, but normally I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on my reviews. Hope this helps, WFCforLife (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing suggestions

[edit]

I'm happy to pass this now. Nice work. Here are a few starting suggestions if you intend to eventually take this towards FAC:

  • Look into the attendance anomoly. I checked and rechecked the source; it's reliable and the statistics are correct, and I can therefore justify passing it. But the question would come up at an FAC, and my guess is that an explanation would be expected.
  • Hunt down a few more images.
  • In the schedule section, consider a weekly roundup of the action. A good starting point for the weighting might be to treat a week similar to how this article treats a month.
  • Add in alt text for the images.
  • Consider reformatting the all-conference section. The table is not particularly easy on the eye.

All in all, nice work. Good luck with the 2008–09 Wolverines season as well! WFCforLife (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season/GA1&oldid=338903317"