Talk:2009 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –Grondemar 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt to provide a Good Article review, so I apologize in advance if I did anything wrong.

I have the following requests to be completed before I concur with Good Article passage. If you disagree with any of the requests, please let me know. I used the current college football good articles as templates: 2008 Maryland Terrapins football team, 2007 Texas Longhorns football team, 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team, 2005 USC Trojans football team.

~~The lead section needs expansion per WP:LEAD. Currently the lead is only one paragraph long; it would be nice to expand it to two-three paragraphs.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added another paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the linked good articles have a "Before the season" section, which summarizes the previous year and says what changed going into the next season. I believe that should be added to the article. All except the Texas article also have a "Postseason" or "After the season" section that summarizes awards, NFL Draft information (which I know can't be finalized yet, but some sourced speculation on who might be drafted would be good), and other changes in the aftermath of the season; this would also be good to add. Concur with closure. –Grondemar 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to reconfigure the article in this regard. I await NFL draft info next month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still working on this. I copyedited the beginning of the article (take a look and let me know what you think); I haven't gotten to the post-season section yet. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Copyedit completed. –Grondemar 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the way the "Awards" section is laid out seems confusing. You have a table of preseason award watch lists, followed by a section taking about the NCAA investigation into practice time, followed by a section talking both about the preseason award watch lists and what awards were won at the end of the year. I would suggest moving the preseason award watch list material to be adjacent to the table, and move the post-season awards to after the game summaries at the end of the article, to help the article flow more chronologically. Concur with closure. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a number of external links incorporated into the body of the article. Per WP:ELPOINTS, these should be either moved to the "External links" section or converted into references. Specifically, it would be nice to incorporate the externally-linked game summaries into the prose with citations rather than just link them. Concur with closure. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per WP:LAYOUT, the external links section should be at the bottom of the article under the references section. I have made this correction.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~You might want to add {{seealso}} links to the opponents in the game summaries.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Acronyms should be spelled out at first use and wikilinked; readers not familiar with American football may be confused by references to K, WR, and TD without any explanation.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 03:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in the article is the problem?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw this mostly in the recruiting section. I grabbed a position table from the featured list Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame and added it before the recruit list; let me know what you think. –Grondemar 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 2009_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team#Position_key looks good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Most of the article prose looks good to me; the game summary for Iowa though looks a little thick as one paragraph and should be broken up into multiple.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added statistics to all of the game summaries and divided them up by quarter. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we want them broken up by quarter? It causes so many single-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think many of the paragraphs are too small when broken up by quarter; ideally paragraphs should have a minimum of three sentences. You could break up the paragraphs by halves or expand what's in the current quarterly paragraphs; note that you don't necessarily need to take the same approach to each individual game section. For example, in the Western Michigan game, nothing much seemed to happen in the second half; in that case, it might make sense to keep the entire game as a single paragraph. –Grondemar 03:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have remerged all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think all the game summaries still need a good copyedit. I also think that many of them are too long as a single paragraph. It might also help to add some more information on individual statistical performances as well as the scoring summary. I'll read deeper later today and tomorrow. –Grondemar 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The more I look at it, the more I think that the game summaries could be significantly improved. Right now many of them read through the scoring summary, without giving a real feel of what was going on during the game. Look through the examples of college football season good articles I linked at the top. This I believe needs to be improved before the article can be promoted. I added some more detail from the listed source to the Western Michigan game summary, but more improvement is certainly possible. It might also help to add more sources, such as local newspapers rather than just the AP report. –Grondemar 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I will probably clean up the prose. I am not going to spend time chronicling further detail of a 5-7 season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have done some minor ce work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to go through the game summary sections with another round of copy-editing. I'll keep the review open until I finish, probably this weekend. –Grondemar 04:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Update: I'm through the Delaware State game now. If you object to any changes I've made please let me know. –Grondemar 05:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyedit completed. –Grondemar 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Images all look good, although more wouldn't hurt; I know that may not be possible.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 03:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~It would be nice to add a season statistics table like that found in the 2008 Maryland and 2006 Oklahoma season articles.~~ Concur with closure. –Grondemar 03:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added statistics.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~The article will be On Hold for the next 7 days waiting for responses to the above requests.~~

With all above concerns addressed, I am pleased to declare this good article nomination passed! Thanks for the hard work and the timely response to my requests! –Grondemar 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. –Grondemar 03:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]