Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [1].

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the prior FAC was closed although I had addressed most of the concerns. I believe this is one of the finest articles on WP. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 17:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No dab links. External links appear functional. The article is 95 kb long (byte count) or 22 kb (prose) and takes long to load; consider making it less graphic- and/or template-heavy or switching to {{vcite web}} etc. templates to improve loading time. And can you get rid of the whitespace at the top of the article? Ucucha 17:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have converted to {{vcite web}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does shrinking photos decrease load time or do I have to remove them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I don't think shrinking is a good idea, as people may have preferences set for images to be larger. You don't have to do anything, though; I only give suggestions and you know better what is good for the article than I do. Ucucha 21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The prose is way below featured standard. I have only looked at the lead, where I found a whole parcel of problems. It would have been wise, after the last FAC, to have had a thorough prose review and major copyedit, because that's what looks like is required now. Here are the more egregious issues from the lead:-

The word "basketball" occurs three times in the opening sentence and again in the second sentence. Surely some rephrasing could avoid such repetition?
- Four instances is now two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The team finished the season with a 21–14 overall record and a 9–9 conference record, which was tied for seventh in the conference standings." What was "tied for seventh" - the 9-9 record? In any event, "tied for seventh" is shorthand reporter-speak, not encyclopedic.
- This is fairly standard college basketball jargon, but I have tweaked it for your edification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It was seeded seventh..." What does "it" refer to?
- Revised.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More reporter-speak: "given a ten seed"
- Revised.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confused unpunctuated sentence, needs punctuating and rephrasing and/or reorganising: "The season was highlighted by the team's first two wins against teams ranked among the top five in the AP Poll in eleven years and its first trip to the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament since the 1998 Tournament."
- Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the last appearance that had been recognized as not having been tainted by the University of Michigan basketball scandal was their 1995 Tournament appearance." Last appearance where, and recognised as untainted by whom?
- Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The team was in its first year off of scholarship probation..." Ouch! ("off of" - the "of" is unnecessary). The sentence that starts this way is also too long and winding, and needs splitting/clarifying. What, for example, is scholarship probation"?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have 17 citations in the lead, yet for some reason, the "burn the ships" sentence, which probably does need citing, doesn't have one.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last paragraph: the "All Big Ten" phraseology is mystifying to those unfamiliar with American basketball terminology. Also, to lumber Manny Harris with so many descriptive adjectives makes for cumbersome prose.
- I have merged the two sentences on this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The final phrase "and the third team by the coaches" is not attached grammatically to the rest of the sentence. If it is referring to Sims, you need a full stop after "first team", new sentence beginning "Sims was selected, a comma after "the media" and "to the third team by the coaches". Also, say who "the coaches" were.
- I think it is now grammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, there are 17 citations in the lead. This seems excessive, especially as some sentences are multiple-cited. If the lead is a general summary of the article, then all of these cited facts should be in the body of the article, and would mostly be better cited there.
- Of the last 10 FA promotions at WP:FAL half have citations in the WP:LEAD. It seems to be a stylistic element with no right or wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to go through the remainder with the proverbial fine toothcomb and check out the prose. Can't be fixed quickly, I fear. Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These responses are all good and may be considered resolved. I'd like to wait a few days and come back in the hopes that the rest of the prose will have been checked out, so I can reverse the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.