Jump to content

Talk:2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2012–13 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 23, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 14, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the 2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season one school advanced to the Sweet Sixteen round in each region of the 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament?
Current status: Good article
  1. Numbered list item

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I'm not happy at all with the prose, the adherence to MOS and the various table formats used throughout, it makes for a messy and incoherent article. I'm going to fail the GAN for now, but would suggest the above issues are resolved, and the GAN renominated in due course where, if I'm around, I'll be more than happy to take another look. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing the article. I am sorry if it has taken a long time for someone to review this article. Feel free to leave comments and ideas/suggestions. The review may take a few days. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found three dead references with CHECKLINKS. Refs 36, 39, and 59 are dead. Could TonyTheTiger or another contributor could comment here and/or find a replacement reference, which may include renewing the link (I'm guessing ESPN archives or something of that nature). Right now, I will be checking all of the sources and then finding "words to avoid" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Preconference Schedule section has no references whatsoever. The Rankings section looks good. On the last few sentences, if the information covers more of the sentences, please use <ref name="..."/>, and Conference Schedules looks good. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, this looks much better now. Everything up to Honors and Awards is looking good. One concern I do have is in the subsection of postseason CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament -- Make it into a professional sentence, such as There were no entrants from the Big Ten Conference in the CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament.. Or Option #2 is to just not include it at all.
Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Honors and Awards section still has some work left. First thing is the All-Big Ten Awards and Teams subsection's table has way to many red links. Removing the wiki markup from the red links might clean up that table. And make sure the USWBA and NABC fit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Otherwise, this article is in really good shape. All links are working and once that is cleaned up, then one last "scrub-down" copy edits might be useful. After that, it looks like a pass. Sportsguy17 (T • C • G) 06:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of redlinks, I think we expect articles for the majority of the redlinks. These guys were for the most part stars as underclassmen who will be bigger stars in the future. I see only one person who graduated who is a redlink, on a quick scan through. I estimate a good percentage of these will have articles within the next 5 months and others within the next 2 or 3 years. Look at 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season and 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. By the time these guys graduate, they almost all have pages. 08-09 has 5 redlinks among the conference honors and 3 among players of the week. 09-10 has 7 and 0. 10-11 has 5 and 1. 11-12 and 12-13 still have players likely to get pages soon. Based on recent history the 15 different names in the All-Big Ten Awards and Teams section will fall to about 5 or 6 pretty soon. Similarly the 5 different players of the week without articles will be reduced to about 2 pretty soon, based on history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the Embedded list issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, that is OK, especially on looking at other articles. All references are alive and appear to verify the content. I will be checking the images, as well as it's spelling and grammar, and then I think I can pass this article. Images and the mechanics (spelling and grammar) look good. I will now be reviewing it by the criterion and either passing it or failing it. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure the embedded list section instructs any necessary changes here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing with the Player of the Week table. Sportsguy17 (T • C • G) 06:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012–13 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) 06:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012–13 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) 03:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012–13_Big_Ten_Conference_men%27s_basketball_season&oldid=1196628166"