Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Tommy Amaker/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tommy Amaker

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I ma trying to get some basketball articles through at FAC. If Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5‎ succeeds, I might push my luck with the same audience for Tommy Amaker. I will need some feedback.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per Tony's request, I'm taking this one on, the second basketball article I've reviewed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: I like to review the lead after everything else, mostly to familiarize myself with the article and subject, since the lead is a summary of the article's body. As a result, seem my review for the lead at the end of this PR.

I made one minor tweak to the lead; otherwise, it looks good. It summarizes the article well, and I see no glaring problems with the text. Nice job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youth

  • I know I didn't insist upon this at the PR of Juwan Howard (and neither did its FAC reviewers), but I feel like I need to insist upon this article following the conventions of biographies. To that end, I suggest that you rename this section to "Early years", which is conventional.
  • I suggest that you follow the convention of beginning bios with something like "Tommy Amaker was born in Falls Church, Virginia in 1965, to [ ], a high school English teacher, and [his father, occupation]." There's no mention of his mother's name, and no mention of his father at all. If Amaker's father wasn't in the picture, you can separate his birthplace and year from the information about his mother, like this: "Tommy Amaker was born in Falls Church, Virginia in 1965. He was raised by a single mother, [name], a high school English teacher." If you can find information about his father, you should add it.
  • Calling something "controversial" is editorializing, something you should avoid. Actually, the entire first paragraph is full of editorializing. See below for what I'd do with it; please change if the information is incorrect.
  • I'd put the info about Amaker motivating the change in policy regarding allowing teachers to choose where their children attended school in a note, since it's important, but not important enough for the main body of the article.
Notice that I copy-edited this paragraph a bit. I think the prose is tighter as a result. Please revert if you disagree. I still think the bit about the Fairfax County rule-change should be in a note. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way the section is now arranged, I think this content is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • His mother, a high school English teacher, was his first coach. His mother attended his practices and graded papers in the coaches' office. His coach, Jenkins, referred to him as "T-bird". You state that his mother was his first coach, and then talked about Jenkins; it seems like Jenkins was really his first coach. Perhaps you mean that she supported him? I think the implication of that is clear, and you don't have to mention it. I don't think it's important that she graded papers in the coaches' office. You've already told us that she was a teacher, so I'd remove that to avoid redundancy. Coaches? So far, you've only mentioned one. I'd fold in this information into the previous paragraph, which I've done.
I still have issues with the wording here. I looked at the source (which is good, I understand why you use it so much), and I don't think that it means that his mother was literally his first coach. I think it uses the word colloquially, to mean that she was his biggest supporter, before his actual b-ball coaches and since his father wasn't around. I'd cut the sentence. The point isn't to list his coaches; it's that he was an exceptional player at a very young age, that his mom was willing to do anything for him, and that these coaches were able to see his talent. Actually, this is indicative of how this article incorporates its sources, something I'll talk about later when I review the sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess our issue is whether the source says she was the first basketball coach he ever had or whether it says that in her role as a mother she gave him the first coaching that he ever had. Could we retain the content by saying that Amaker's high school coach described Alma Amaker as "his first coach and his best coach" and leave it for the reader to decide whether this is literal or figurative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good compromise. I went ahead and added the quote, but later in the section. Change if you disagree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amaker, who grew up in Fairfax, was the first freshman to make varsity in W.T. Woodson history. We already know where he grew up, so I'd remove it to avoid redundancy. I think you could put the fact that he was the first freshman earlier, to make it flow better.
  • My version: "Although Amaker resided in Falls Church, he attended W.T. Woodson High School in Fairfax, Virginia because his mother was a teacher in Fairfax County. She choose the school because its basketball coach, Red Jenkins, who called Amaker "T-bird", had been impressed with his performances at his youth summer league since Amaker was ten years old. He began playing varsity for Woodson by December of his freshman year, making him the first freshman to play varsity in the school's history."
Better, but I don't think it's necessary to state why she was able to choose the school. I tweaked it a little more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: I think that you should put the info about the All-American teams at the end of the previous paragraph. This is the first time you mention Krzyzewski in the article's body, so you should link him, state his whole name, and identify his position (along with Duke University, since this will be the first time in the body that it's mentioned). What do you mean by "First-year Duke coach"--was it his first year he coached for Duke?
This is a much stronger section now. There are some issues left, but I'll let other help you resolve them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop here, and continue either tomorrow or the next day. I'll have to do this in spurts, which means that it'll take some time, so please be patient with me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

College career

  • I know that there was some controversy about how years numbers should be represented at Juwan Howard, so you should follow what was decided.
  • When Amaker arrived, unranked Duke, led by Dawkins and Amaker, immediately ran off the longest winning streak of 4th year head coach Krzyzewski's career as it won its first seven games. You know you have unencyclopedic writing when you need to ask questions to clarify. When you say "immediately ran off the longest winning streak", the timing of it is unclear. And what does that mean; how many games? Perhaps you should say that "during Amaker's freshman year..." Was it K's fourth year of coaching? I want to copy-edit this sentence, but I can't until you answer these questions.
See my copy-edit; I think it's tighter now.
I'm glad that you removed the Louisville stats, but being the basketball idiot I am, I didn't understand that the Blue Devils is Duke's team name. Sorry about that. The 1st sentence still makes it sound like they're separate entities, so I tweaked it a little more to clarify. Remember, you need to assume that not everyone who reads this article knows about the subject. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need to find a better system with these complicated PRs. I separated the paragraphs now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you strike each resolved issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So he was spokesman during his senior year, too? Perhaps you should say that, like: "Amaker served as spokesman against drug and alcohol abuse as part of an NCAA-Fiesta Bowl drug education television program for a year starting in April 1996." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senior year

  • ...Amaker was roommates with ACC rival Muggsy Bogues. I know that A's a basketball player, but he's only one person, right? One person cannot be "roommates" with someone. To avoid that, how about: "Amaker's ACC rival Muggsy Bogues was his roommmate."
  • In the tournament he barely played in some games and started in others. Can we get more detail? What do you mean by "barely played"; could you tell us how many games and how long he tended to play in them? And how many did he start?
Remember that your sources have to support your claims. This source doesn't do that; it describes his involvement in the game against Spain and that he played for two minutes against Puerto Rico. You could say that he had a key role in the tournament, especially in the first round. Is there more information out there about this tournament, and A's part? If not, I'd be inclined to remove this sentence. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't "Amaker, from Duke, started the game after playing only two minutes in the previous game against Puerto Rico. " support "In the tournament he barely played in some games and started in others."?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the source only discusses two games, and your version makes it sound like he didn't play much during the entire tournament. You could describe the game against Spain, and say that despite only playing for two minutes, he played more against PR, but if you do that, it wouldn't be comprehensive and describe A's involvement in the entire tournament. I know this seems to be my standard solution, but you could put it in a note. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see two alternate solutions: "In the tournament he barely played in at least one game and started in at least one" and "In the tournament, his participation ranged from barely playing in some games to starting others". I have currently changed to the former, but this continues to be under discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the highlights... More editorializing. You don't need to state "that season", since we know what you're talking about from the heading. I suggest: "He hit a three-point shot with 1:39 remaining in overtime against 17–0 (4–0 ACC) Horace Grant-led Clemson to give Duke the lead for good."
  • ...Markus pointed to this as an example. I've forgotten who Markus is. I know that you mention him earlier, but I think you should avoid mentioning him again for this very reason. You can say, "According to the Chicago Tribune, or remove his name altogether.
I'm just telling you my thoughts while reading it; I went, "Who's Markus", and I'd bet other non-basketball fans would do the same. That's why I suggested that you change the wording, to avoid the confusion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are suppose to assume if you mention a full name the reader will remember the person when we mention him a few paragraphs later by just his last name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It's a small thing, but taking the perspective of a reader, that's what I suggest. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishments

  • The parentheticals referring the records broken is a little confusing. I think a better way to handle it is to break up the information and group the records and who broke them together. How about: "Amaker set many Duke career and single-season assists records. He held the record for single-season assists in the years between 1986 and 1990, which was broken by Bobby Hurley. Hurley also broke Amaker's records in career assists per game (5.1, 1987–93) and career assists (708, 1987–92). Steve Wojciechowski broke Amaker's records in single-season assists to turnover ratio (2.88, 1985–97) and career assists to turnover ratio (2.11, 1987–98)." Please make sure I've done this correctly.
  • His school single-game assists record of 14 tied on vs. Miami, February 19, 1986 was not broken..." This is a little confusing to me. Do you mean that he made the record in a game against Miami? Remember to tone down the b-ball speak when possible.
  • The 2nd paragraph is also confusing. Are you saying that A played 40 games in a season; if so, which one? Did Alarie and Dawkins each play 133 consecutive games? If Duhon broke that record, why do you need to mention them? You could say that Duhon has the most games played, followed by A with 138, and Alarie and Dawkins behind him at 133, if that's accurate. I also don't know why you should include the ACC 40 games info. It may be best relegated to a note.
Well, I didn't know that! I stand by my comment, but will let other reviewers chime in. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro career: Did he get cut from the SuperSonics because the NBA considered him too small? Did he join the alternative league because of it? Why did he only spend three days with them; was it because he decided to go back to school? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your change, but it brings up another question I didn't think of before: does the NBA really have a rule about its players' sizes? If so, you should cite the rule. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
No there is no size rule. Muggsy Bogues, who is mentioned in the article was way shorter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Ok, I've looked at the source. I'll wait to give you feedback, since it fits better into a discussion about sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching career/Duke

  • I assume that A took the asst. coach position after he earned his master's degree. If so, I think instead of saying "after graduation", you should say "after he earned his master's degree".
  • While an assistant, he declined numerous Division I head coaching opportunities. This might go better in the 1st sentence of this paragraph. Did he decline the opportunities because he loved being at Duke so much?
I wonder, then, if that sentence should be moved to the beginning of the next paragraph?
  • In 1992, he was under consideration to replace Wimp Sanderson as Alabama coach after he was forced out. Why did he not get this job?
  • In 1993, he was the leading candidate to assume the head coaching job at Northwestern when Bill Foster stepped aside, but at age 27, he declined the job when it was offered. Why did Foster step aside? I ask because how I'd like to reword this depends upon the answer. And why did A decline?
  • I don't know why Krzyzewski's back surgery is important. I'd remove it unless you state how it affected A.
I realize that following the chronological format is important, but you're right; it doesn't flow well. You're not chronological in the previous paragraph, which is about A's success at Duke. Perhaps you can fold the info about K's surgery there, like this: "He served as an assistant coach from 1989–97, and despite Krzyzewski's leave of absence due to his recovery from back surgery in 1994 and 1995, Duke was successful during this time. The team won two NCAA Championships (1991 & 1992) and made two other Final Four appearances (1990 & 1994)." I'd omit all the other information about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This season was a really bad one for Duke. I have rearranged the text. It might be the only season since Amaker was there that they did not make the NCAA tournament, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Hall

  • 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph: ... to fall to 15–15. Excuse the lack of knowledge again, but does this phrase refer to the game score, or something else? Reading on, I see that it refers to their standing--15 wins, 15 losses. I think you should make that more clear.
  • While at Seton Hall, Amaker recruited the #2 recruiting class in the nation for the class of 2000, according to ESPN. While it's not incorrect to start a sentence with a preposition (ha-ha), I think it should be avoided in encyclopedic writing. How about: "According to ESPN, Amaker recruited the #2 recruiting class in the nation for the class of 2000 while at Seton Hall."
  • You're using the word "beat*" too often; I've tried to change it where I could.
  • 1st sentence, final paragraph: Was does the "east/west seeds" stuff mean? Is that how the tournament is structured? If so, could you explain it?
  • The following season, Amaker resigned as the Seton Hall head coach and took the vacant Michigan head coaching job. When Amaker met to discuss the potential job to replace the fired Ellerbe, Michigan athletic director Bill Martin decided to save money and meet in a hotel lobby instead of renting a room. I think you should put the reason for being hired by Michigan earlier. I'd also like these sentences re-structured a little. How about: "The following season, Amaker resigned as the Seton Hall head coach and became head coach at Michigan, replacing Ellerbe, who had been fired. Amaker met with Michigan athletic director Bill Martin in a hotel lobby instead of renting a room because Martin wanted to save money."
Another source integration issue, but I recognize that it's a matter of interpretation. Again, I'll talk more about it later, but for now I'll say that characterizing the N.J. press in this way is editorializing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan

  • He inherited a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team that was emerging from the shadows of the University of Michigan basketball scandal. This is the kind of statement that needs attribution. I also think that you need to explain the scandal.
I see that you've linked it, but the statement that the team was "emerging from the shadows of..." still isn't attributed. You still haven't explained the scandal; you only need a few words. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Rephrased and reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Seems picky, but I need to bring it up: the word "which" is supposed to refer to something previously mentioned. I think you want to contrast the two ideas about playing against Duke and losing, so I substituted the word "but". You should also avoid starting a sentence with a preposition; I changed that as well.

  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Don't assume that the reader will know why Michigan banned itself from the tournaments. If it was a consequence of the scandal, you need to tell me. If you do that, I think you can combine it with the 2nd sentence.

* Amaker, who avoids the spotlight, was not on the court as his team partook in the ceremonial cutting of the nets at the 2004 NIT. First, you mix tenses here. Secondly, I'd make a different choice than "partook", but that's just me being picky. Thirdly, as a non-fan, I have no idea what this ceremony is.

I respectfully disagree; you say that he "avoids the spotlight" and that he "was not on the court". I went ahead and fixed it.
  • I think you should be consistent throughout the article about whether to refer to the teams as "it" or "they". I personally prefer "they", but either is correct, so it's up to you.
Your solution caused another problem--now, you overuse the word "team" too much. I suggest that you vary it a bit; use "they" or "it" along with the name of the team, and other variations you can think of. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
It is correct when referring to Harvard or any single team (e.g., the 2010-11 team). They is correct when referring to the Harvard Crimson. I.e., Harvard is, the Harvard Crimson are. Also. the 2010-11 team is and 2010-11 Crimson are. This was at issue in prior FAC debates. When refering to a team by its mascot/nickname the plural is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*5th paragraph: When you say, Along the way...", are you talking about the National Invitation Tournament, or the entire season? Please clarify.

Are you satisfies with Michigan? I didn't finish and don't want issues coming up at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You're right; I wish there was a better way to deal with resolved comments in a review. Notice that I changed to strike-through, which is more clear. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard

  • Was A. Harvard's first black coach? The way it's worded now sounds like he was one of 32 coaches who worked there at the same time. I doubt that's true, so you should state that despite 32 previous coaches, it was the first time in the school's history. Or something like that.
  • Harvard's recruiting process included interviewing with the underclassmen on the team who felt Amaker was a preferred choice to the competition that included Mike Jarvis and Mike Gillian. Unclear wording. Did the underclass interview A? Did he interview only with the students who preferred him over the competition?
  • What's a "BCS school"? Can you link it?
    • In truth it is a bit of a misnomer, but we are summarizing sources. BCS conferences are the major Division I football conferences. The assumption here is that they are also the major Division I basketball conferences. In basketball the proper term would truly be power conference, but the basketball conferences might not mesh 100% with the BCS conferences although they sort of do. I have linked the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I still think you need to fix it. Are you saying that Harvard came from behind? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to reword again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it currently says "to a earn a share". Is that right? Couldn't you just say that they tied with Princeton for first place? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did jumble it up a bit. I have fixed it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2nd to the last in this section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amaker's 2012-13 Harvard team entered the season under the cloud of the 2012 Harvard cheating scandal. More editorializing. How about replacing "under the cloud of" with "affected by", or something like that.
  • I think you should combine the reason for the players' withdrawal with the sentence describing their withdrawal.

Whew, one more section, then I'll tackle the lead and sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Personal



  • It's customary to entitle a section like this "Personal life".

    • 

  • I'm not sure that much of the information in this section is notable.  I don't think that A's food preferences and where he eats breakfast is important.  Some of the information has already been mentioned, like his degrees, so that's redundant.  Most of the information can also be folded into other parts of the article.  For example, the stuff about how his mother made his spaghetti can be put into the discussion about her devotion to him.  I'd put it in a note, but you seem to be resistant to my suggestions about that; at the very least, it could go into a parenthetical.  I also think that the information about his political leanings can be put into the Duke section, when you talk about his relationship with Coach Krzyzewski.  His fashion choices (especially his turtlenecks) can go in Duke as well, and his avoidance of the press.  I can help you with this if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Sure, it's unusual, but to be blunt, who the heck cares?  I understand that this is just a PR, so you can leave and take what you will.  I suspect that other editors will feel the same, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]



I know I said that I would help, and I can, but it may be a while, since I have other things pending.  I am unemployed for the summer, but I'm still busy and involved in lots of projects.  I think that for now, this PR is done, since I've said everything that needs to be said.  I still think you should have at least one more editor look at it before you take it any further, like to FAC.  I also think that what I say below about the sources is still true, but I don't think that I'm the person to help you with that, since I'm not at all knowledgeable about basketball.  Good luck; I'll keep this article on my watchlist and follow its progress. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sources review



  • I think that this article suffers from WP:OVERCITE.  Remember, as per WP:PAIC, sources should be placed at the end of a passage.  The exception is when you make a statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all direct quotations.  Example: 1st short paragraph in "Early years" section; you could put ref2 at the end of the 2nd sentence, since the first statement (A's mother being a teacher) isn't likely to be challenged.  (I went ahead and did it myself, since it was easy to do.)  It happens often throughout the article; I suggest that you go through and trim your citations.  Another related problem is citation clutter.  Remember, Wikipedia isn't a data dump; it's a summary of what's been said about a given topic.  For example: the last sentence in the 1st paragraph in the "Senior year" section has three references supporting it.  I think that ref 29 is enough to support the statement that A won a gold medal and that the tournament was also part of the Goodwill Games.  A good rule of thumb is that using one source to support a statement is better than using three; there are times when you use more.  WP:OVERCITE recommends limiting them to three.  I suggest that you go through your sources and check for that.


  • As I've hinted before, one of the biggest weaknesses of this article is the way that its sources are integrated.  I'll use ref2 as an example because it's a good source with lots of information that can used here and because it's used so often.  As I've also said, I don't blame you for using it so much.  I think that you missed a great opportunity with the profile.  The first part of the article talks about how intensely private A is, so much so that he avoids the spotlight.  The story about missing the tradition of snipping off the net after the championship game is just an example of that, as are the stories about avoiding the press and interviews and about how even those around him protect his privacy.  That's what you should focus on, not on all those little stories.  That's the kind of thing that belongs in a "Personal life" section, not where he eats breakfast.  As I referred to earlier in this review, his mother straining his spaghetti sauce is really about her devotion to him, which was also shown in her attendance at his high school practices and getting him in the right school.


  • Why do you focus on things like the spaghetti sauce and not his car and memorabilia collection?  How did you decide what was important enough to include and not to include?  It really is an editorial choice; as this article's main editor, it's up to you to decide what information is notable and what isn't.  What does the sources tend to say about A consistently?  I think the sauce is important because it's about his relationship with his mother, which is discussed over many sources.  His relationship with Coach K. is also important, despite their political differences.  I think that you need to emphasize that and his politics in the context of that relationship.  Why is his wardrobe important?  Does it go back to his privacy, or is it about his formality?  Is he private because he's formal?  The sources will tell you, and if they do, include it here.  You miss completely something I see as crucial and should be added: the end of the profile, which discusses his relationship with his players, who see him as a father figure.  One player even said that he loved A.  How could you not include that?


  • I hope that I've been able to explain what I mean about better integrating your sources.  Remember, as I've also said above, that Wikipedia isn't a data dump, or a repository of facts about a subject.  There's an art to writing an encyclopedia.  Become so familiar with the topic, though the sources, that you're able to see patterns and themes, but without inserting your own personal opinion about it. I suggest that you start by re-reading your sources; in other words, do a literature review and see where it takes you.  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Tomorrow, I'll have time to go through the new responses and strike the resolved ones, which will close my part of this review.  I think we've been able to make this article much tighter.  Sorry it's taken me so long to complete; this was a complicated review.  That's what you get for asking a busy person! ;) I think that before you take it to FAC, you should have at least one more person look it over to catch things we missed this time around.  Thanks for all your hard work, Tony! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tommy_Amaker/archive1&oldid=552699606"