Jump to content

Talk:Nebraska Cornhuskers women's volleyball

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmacclain, Jaredgafke, Abogus2, Cthoendel, Cetaylor422. Peer reviewers: Unljohn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:University-of-Nebraska-Lincoln-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nebraska Cornhuskers women's volleyball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Subjects

[edit]

It seems as if there is a lack of information on new seasons (2009 and on). Within this time many of important players have come through the program as well as Big 10 Titles and a National Championship. I think sections should be added for 2009 and on, important players, the move to the Big 10, a larger section on the move to the new area. Another potential point of interest could be how the revenue of the volleyball program to the university. I believe it is the second most profitable sport behind football at UNL. Abogus2 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

The intro contains a large amount of information that would suit better if they were in the bottom area. I believe the intro is meant for a brief introduction to the topic and should not contain numbers of wins and dates because these would be considered details.

Maral Popal (Mpopal2 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

Under the home court advantage topic, the dates do not seem to be in order. By putting them in order it would make the articles flow much better. Also under the history it talks about coaches which are in order for date but then there is one called "1995" which talks about senior players which seems very oddly placed. Could include that under the coach that the 3 seniors played for and it would make more sense. Otherwise the article looks great and so do the graphics!

Delaniebarnard (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Delanie Barnard[reply]

Peer Review--Sarah

[edit]

A lot of my suggestions for edit have been stated before but they are the same issues that I have found. The intro is really extensive and I think the information could be spread throughout. It also seems like the information is repeated over because of how much detail is in the intro. I think the intro should mainly just give the basics plus the important relevant and newest details. Definitely include the latest championship, but you can leave the spectator information for later on in the article. The intro should be used for what people really want to know most predominantly, such as the championship. Whereas information about it being a popular spectator sport for later on since (while it's still a really interesting and meaningful piece of information) it isn't necessarily essential to the overall topic. Something else to watch out for is the pictures. Are they following the codes set by Wikipedia? Are there other pictures that could be used too? I think a picture of the most current team would really help put a face to the team. If people are looking up this article, it is probably because of the team this current year. This can be updated time to time as teams change but it would help to update that. If not the team from this exact season, than at least the most recent championship team. Again, make sure to follow Wikipedia's rules on licensing and media when editing here. I think a lot more could be said about the 2015-2016 season. The section on 2007-2009 is jam-packed full with information, but the section on the season leading to the most recent National Championship is at the barest. The Championship is, obviously, the greatest part of that information, but what lead up to that? What games made the most impact and set them ahead to number one in ranking? If you look at the other sections, they go into detail on particular games that really mattered for the team's later success. Can you add that kind of information to the 2015-2016 section? (I also think you could cut a bit from the longer sections too. It becomes extensive overtime with how many successful seasons there are. Only the major important and relevant details should be used for a Wikipedia article, not every fact ever found. Try to be more concise here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindelsn (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Peer Review, Bergen

[edit]

Okay, so I agree with Sarah, the introduction is very clumped. I think it would make the reader bored really quickly, and they really have to sift through the dense award information to get a sense of what the team is like. The awards need to be moved to their own section, and the intro needs to be consolidated. The intro actually should be really short. I think most of the information there should land under either awards or history. You don't need all that clutter. Really good break down of the coach history, lots of information there. Good documentation of all the awards and championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BergenJohnston (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Jeff Chesnut

[edit]

I think this Wiki page has very good start but now the key is to harness all this information into half the amount of words. My suggestions are similar to what the other reviewers have said with regard to limiting the intro; I didn't necessarily get distracted by the intro but it's rather long and I would just include the basic information there, leave the statistics for later in the page. The images and copyright stuff may be something you want to look into as well. Changes which are different from the other reviewers that I have for you all would be 1) I enjoyed reading about the two arenas used for Husker Volleyball, but I would rather see them separated into two distinct sections. Possibly put the title "Nebraska Coliseum" in bold and then "Bob Devaney Sports Center" in bold and then include the information underneath each title. 2) I would also include that the Devaney Center is not exclusively used for just Volleyball, as Husker wrestling, gymnastics, swimming/diving, track & field also use the Center. 3) You mention that Nebraska in 2013-2014 was third in the country with $2.39 million for budget purposes; who were the top 2 ahead of them? I find that rather shocking that they weren't number 1. 4) I would also include that Volleyball is typically a sport that loses money, in fact, almost every sport at Division 1 levels lose money with the exception of Football & Men's Basketball. 5) Rather than breaking down each National Title section by the dates and elaborating on them, possibly just talk about key moments or games that defined the seasons. This may be the National Title games or other games that had huge meanings throughout the season; such as rivalry games against Penn State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Texas, etc. Ultimately, just shrink the information in this section. 6) An important note that I did not see anywhere would be to include the dominance of the Big 10 conference on the volleyball national landscape. This year & and the past few years the Big 10 has been the dominant conference by a large margin. Aka the shift from Big 12 to Big 10 conference has benefited Husker Volleyball tremendously.

Overall, great start! I love the statistical sections in the bottom half of the page as well! Look forward to reading the finished product! JeffChesnut (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review - Maris Stebbing

[edit]

This seems like a great start! Here's some notes that I wrote while reading the article:

-"This includes the largest crowd ever (17,561) in the 2015 NCAA National Championship between Nebraska and Texas, and the second-most all time (17,551) in the 2015 NCAA National Semifinals between Nebraska and Kansas." needs a citation

-CBS sports documentary mention seems a bit random compared to the paragraph-- maybe title the documentary and explain the context / why this was included

-"Only three times in 33 years of regular-season Big 8/Big 12 play has a conference opponent ever won in Lincoln. In 1991, the Huskers played their games at the Bob Devaney Sports Center while the building was being renovated and tailored specifically for volleyball. The Huskers have hosted an NCAA Tournament match every season since 1984 compiling a 52-4 playoff record in the building" the tranistion between the three times of loss and 1991 is a bit confusing. Is that why they lost? I'm not an avid sports fan (at all), so maybe this just isn't my realm to critique, but these sentences seem a bit choppy and like it's just a listing of what the Huskers have done. It would help me to see the context of these things and why they're being said-- maybe more in story form to form the rest of the paragraph??

"In 2013, the Husker volleyball program moved into a renovated Bob Devaney Sports Center. Previously a basketball arena, it was transformed into a volleyball venue with seating for 7,907 and suites on one side of the court.[11] The move to the new stadium did not threaten the Husker's sellout streak as it continues to be the longest in the history of NCAA women's sports.[12] The Cornhuskers have led all of NCAA volleyball in attendance every year since moving to the Devaney Center with an average of 8,206 people per match in 2015.[13]" this paragraph might be better if it's within the first paragraph. right now, it seems a little off topic since it seems introductory, and the Devaney Center has already been introduced.

"Sullivan’s first season as head coach was shortly after the passing of Title IX by the United State’s Congress in 1972" Consider describing Title IX or explaining why Title IX is relevant to Pat Sullivan

"Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women Regional Final" I should probably know what this is, but I don't. Maybe link this to something or explain what happened


The more I read the article, the more I realized how much I really don't know about sports. I'm sorry if any of my suggestions seem obvious! Aside from my lack of knowledge, the introduction does have information that is included later in the article, and it was a little confusing. Easy fix! Additionally, the article seems very long with successful seasons. As Sarah has mentioned, the Wikipedia article should only include very notable seasons. Try considering which seasons were turning points for the team and which seasons marked special events. Great job overall, and good luck with your final page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaris Stebbing (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Emily Dunn

[edit]

I believe that the first paragraph would be better fit in another section of this article. I like how the second article goes into a little history and it is a great starter. I still believe the rest of the second paragraph would be best fit in a section on championships and their history of wins. Under the title Home Court Advantage, really awesome start, the wording sounds great and it really draws me in as a reader. This whole section is really well put together, no complaints there. -Under History, in regards to Pat Sullivan, I think including more information on this person would be helpful in building a back story. Why did they leave? This part of the section was much shorter than the other coaches. Under the Terry era, once the years start progressing, the information gets longer and longer. I like the information, but I think it could be consolidated immensely.

Otherwise awesome start! Great information and work was put into this. Keep up the good work and good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilydu (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review- John Stephens

[edit]

You guys did a pretty good job for your improvements. The section on terry pettit was definitely missing a lot of substance. A couple suggestions the home court advantage subsection contains a lot about budgeting and revenue. That doesn't necessarily pertain to home court advantage. It might go better in a different or entirely new section. Another major possible improvement would be in the records section. Nebraska has been in the Big Ten Conference for several years now so including the big ten records would be relevant. Also I know that nebraska holds several big ten and ncaa records for attendance, both season wide and individual game. those could also be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unljohn (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Nice start to your page!

Could you connect the lede graf more to what you discuss in the article? Coaches begin getting discussed, and I wasn't expecting it. Perhaps some reorganization could be done to move some of the stats. I thought the infographic on the upper right was neat. It was helpful to see the stats and info (like school colors, etc) in one, visual place.

Could Title IX be linked somewhere? Not everyone will know wha that is. The second sentence in the Pettit section confused me a bit. Could you "show don't tell" the national power bit (unless you're quoting someone)? It doesn't come across as neutral, but the info stands on its own as proof the reader can determine. The inclusion of information on players in the coach section was a little confusing for me. Also "the talented seniors" isn't neutral. You could give information, instead, and the reader could see from that. "Easily clinched..." phrases sprinkled thoughout the '95 section tat aren't neutral.

Nice touch explaining the badgers were the former team of the recent coach.

2005 is a big section with only one source. You have a lot of information through this whole page. Could you include more sources for the stats and history-related things?

There is so much info in each year section; it's a bit overwhelming. Could it be broken up somehow?

This group was clearly very passionate and dedicated to the project. My biggest concerns are the breadth of information and how it's organized, and the non-neutral language throughout the piece. More sources could also be used to show where you got the stats and history.

Nice effort. That must have taken awhile. You all put a lot into this. I love the infographic at the end. Could some of the text be reduced for favor of the infographic? Way to go!

LiHand (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Lindsey Hand[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nebraska Cornhuskers women's volleyball. 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) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nebraska_Cornhuskers_women%27s_volleyball&oldid=1204226514"