Talk:2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In accordance with lead sections (see left), ideally all it should consist of is a set of summaries of longer or less-joined up statements made elsewhere. Therefore to be kind to the readers you might want it to be a little less detailed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One of the tables was way over to the right which is bound to offend looking via a tablet or smartphone. I'll fix this. You can use {{clear}}, see Template:clear which gives the left right and center options and there is the clearall template too.
	2b. 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).	252 sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements. There are a couple of easily verifiable diagrams and tables which simply summarises other facts so are not original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to other articles on comparable season subjects, this article is very well developed, even to the extent of having the schedule in nice readably medium long paragraphs.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• This article has only one completely forgiveable shortcoming in my view which is most likely seen under featured articles, ie currently popular copyedit standard leads, having regard to all the good article criteria and 7 links are now ideally in need of precise coding tlc as now redirects (so still work but careful future-proofers will like to fix).
  • I have swapped out three refs. A fourth one seemed to be bad earlier, but it is not appearing in the listing from this tool.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the articles linked to (links) need disambiguation in their coding.

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that's done perhaps we could consider removing the lead's stadium capacity, which, while not quite fixed, seems like digression here, as opposed to in a team article, though by encyclopedic convention not necessarily in an "infobox" which is a Mecca for statisticians... and dare I say it should this convention-only view not prevail (philosophically, what in encyclopedias cannot be improved by numbers?) the digression into this outstandingly ample capacity is Peacock which is elsewhere not seen even for such a top flight team. The records really do however each stand out in US basketball for the season and make a great read for anyone aspiring in the whole sport. - Adam37 Talk 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, but not really sure why.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit to lead

The edit summary box wasn't large enough to hold the entire edit summary, so for my recent edit:

Identifying the most recent year they were 16–0 is relevant, but identifying that they won a conference championship in that year is not essential to the point, especially given that the bulk of those wins were non-conference games. It is even less relevant to include the information that the team won the regular season championship in the prior year. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial help. I am on board with all your changes except this one. The point of the statement is to contextualize which historical Michigan Team we are talking about. At one point it said the last team to successfully defend a Big Ten Championship as compared to the last team to win a National Championship. Now it says last repeat Big Ten Champion, which is a different emphasis but the same point. Basically, this team matched all the great Michigan teams of the past 1985–86, 1988–89, 1991–92 and 1992–93 in various ways.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to push back.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Injury - identify, or better yet, remove

I assume the reference in the lead to an injury contributing to losing three out of four games was the injury to Jon Horford. (Hardaway's injury was around the same time, leading to some small confusion). My first thought was to include the name, but now I'm thinking differently. You seriously think an injury to a non-starter who managed 4 points in his last full game against Binghamton, and zero points in his prior game is that note-worthy? I don't know the team, but this sounds like a stretch. While it looks like he is more in for defense, he's not a starter, or even a 20 minute sixth player. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The injury was to starter and Big Ten All-Defensive team selectee Jordan Morgan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and for adding the name. I originally thought the injury was being used to explain the first loss to OSU. I now think that was my misreading, but that's why I searched for injuries prior to the game, and missed the reference to Morgan later. Missing Morgan is worth the mention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No paragraph break?

The prose transitions from the B1G tournament to the NCAA Tournament without even a paragraph break? I gather it is because the conference tournament discussion was only two sentences, and it is usually not good form to have a two-sentence paragraph, but the NCAA Tournament is a major change in subject. I considered adding a paragraph break, but it might be better to expand the conference tournament discussion, and I'm not the best one to do that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed wrong to have such a short paragraph by itself and the Big Ten Tournament was basically a big disappointment in the context of such a successful season. Any further text on the subject is sort of artificial, although if mandated to do so for a WP:FAC, I could expand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the challenge. I've never been a FAC reviewer, so am not the best one to comment, but I'll be surprised if it isn't suggested at that time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Corey Person status

While it is clear that Corey Person started as a walk-on, I didn't find definitive sources stated whether he was or was not on scholarship for his fifth year. Many sources refer to him as a walk-on, I found none indicating that he received a scholarship, so I added his status to the roster box. If that information is wrong, the main text "and the return of walk-on Corey Person for a fifth year" needs to be corrected as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

understood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger

Wouldn't be better if this article is merged with its umbrella article, the Michigan Wolverines ?

I guess ANYONE can write an article about ANY particular year for ANY particular team for ANY sport and for ANY department/state of ANY country in ANY region of the world. But then is this in line with Wikipedia principles?

I believe under this tendency there is a huge risk that Wikipedia becomes a big, fat and sterile monster full of pretty English sentences about nothing else than rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.1.78 (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)