Talk:2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing the article. I am sorry if it has taken a long time for someone to review this article. Feel free to leave comments and ideas/suggestions. The review may take a few days. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found three dead references with CHECKLINKS. Refs 36, 39, and 59 are dead. Could TonyTheTiger or another contributor could comment here and/or find a replacement reference, which may include renewing the link (I'm guessing ESPN archives or something of that nature). Right now, I will be checking all of the sources and then finding "words to avoid" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Preconference Schedule section has no references whatsoever. The Rankings section looks good. On the last few sentences, if the information covers more of the sentences, please use <ref name="..."/>, and Conference Schedules looks good. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, this looks much better now. Everything up to Honors and Awards is looking good. One concern I do have is in the subsection of postseason CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament -- Make it into a professional sentence, such as There were no entrants from the Big Ten Conference in the CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament.. Or Option #2 is to just not include it at all.
Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Honors and Awards section still has some work left. First thing is the All-Big Ten Awards and Teams subsection's table has way to many red links. Removing the wiki markup from the red links might clean up that table. And make sure the USWBA and NABC fit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Otherwise, this article is in really good shape. All links are working and once that is cleaned up, then one last "scrub-down" copy edits might be useful. After that, it looks like a pass. Sportsguy17 (T • C • G) 06:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of redlinks, I think we expect articles for the majority of the redlinks. These guys were for the most part stars as underclassmen who will be bigger stars in the future. I see only one person who graduated who is a redlink, on a quick scan through. I estimate a good percentage of these will have articles within the next 5 months and others within the next 2 or 3 years. Look at 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season and 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. By the time these guys graduate, they almost all have pages. 08-09 has 5 redlinks among the conference honors and 3 among players of the week. 09-10 has 7 and 0. 10-11 has 5 and 1. 11-12 and 12-13 still have players likely to get pages soon. Based on recent history the 15 different names in the All-Big Ten Awards and Teams section will fall to about 5 or 6 pretty soon. Similarly the 5 different players of the week without articles will be reduced to about 2 pretty soon, based on history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the Embedded list issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, that is OK, especially on looking at other articles. All references are alive and appear to verify the content. I will be checking the images, as well as it's spelling and grammar, and then I think I can pass this article. Images and the mechanics (spelling and grammar) look good. I will now be reviewing it by the criterion and either passing it or failing it. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure the embedded list section instructs any necessary changes here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing with the Player of the Week table. Sportsguy17 (T • C • G) 06:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012–13_Big_Ten_Conference_men%27s_basketball_season/GA2&oldid=1136286747"