Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/John Beilein/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

John Beilein 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 it is detailed enough to be a WP:FA. I would like to get more feedback.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. In some of my editorial efforts, I have been noted for being excessive in use of citations. In this article, at times in Beilein's career where he was in a two newspaper town, I often included both citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Tony, I haven't peer-reviewed one of your articles recently, so I'll try this one. Will report soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I'm not sure how helpful this review is going to be, but I'm doing my best. Basketball isn't my field of expertise, but here goes.

  • Lead
    • "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third year at Michigan..." A season cannot be a year. Suggest: "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third at Michigan..."
    • What is the "Division 1 level"?
    • Since "Coach of the Year" seems to be an accepted award, it should be capitalised (as here)
    • He's won this "numerous" times - but you only give three instances. If these are examples from a bigger number you should say so. Otherwise, say he's won it three times.
      • I count four times, but they are different types of Coach of the Year recognitions at different levels of play. I will change numerous to four though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the NCAA Tournament? (yes, I know, ignorant Brits, but there's quite a few of us)
  • Early college coaching career
    • This sentence is somewhat intrusive, placed where it is: "Beilein first applied to coach Division I basketball at Canisius in 1987."[9] The information should be placed at the end of the section, as part of the lead-in to the next phase of his career.
      • I have clarified that he was not hired the first time he applied. The sentence is in the correct chronological place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would expect the section to end with information about his second, and evidently successful, application to coach at Canisius, rather than the somewhat flat statement about him unsuccessfully seeking other jobs.
  • Canisius
    • What is the first sentence about? How is Beilien compiling a record for the 1991-92 season when he doesn't join te college until 1992?
    • Dodgy grammar: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College, which was also the first position at which he hired assistant coaches." Needs to be something like: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College as head coach, and was able for the first time to hire assistant coaches."
    • No spaces around mdashes (I fixed this in the lead, not elsewhere)
    • "team into a team" is repetitive. Use a word like "outfit", "line-up", "squad" etc, for the second mention of team.
    • Second paragraph: after the words "Coach of the Year" the text becomes very confusing. Who were "the number one seeded team", and what is the relevance of this sentence to Beilien? What does "The conference earned three NIT invitations" mean? I am equally lost with the rest of the paragraph. No doubt it all makes good sense to followers of American basketball, but it needs to be understood by the rest of us.
    • Who are the "Golden Griffins" - is this a nickname for Canisius?
    • "...and it continued to have never won the conference tournament." Very awkward phrasing. Perhaps "and it continued its record of never having won the conference tournament.
    • I'm having great difficulty trying to follow a tournament structure that I don't understand. As I've said, it's probably clear to those that know these things. However, one thing that bothers me is that Beilien, the subject of the article, is pretty well invisible in this section, which is basically a record of his team's results and little more. Perhaps we could do with fewer results and more about Beilien's coaching methods, and why he was successful.
  • Richmond, West Virginia and Michigan sections
    • I don't see much purpose in my commenting on these sections, which mirror the Canisius material in largely presenting team performances under Beilien, with little about the man himself.
      • See current FA Steve Bruce. His managerial career section does not talk about him much as a person. Coaches are written about in depth personally unless they have extraordinary accomplishments. I think this is sufficiently broad for FA consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coaching style: disappointingly brief. I would have expected something about the influences on Beilien which helped him develop his particular coaching style, also indications of how the style has changed and developed over his fairly lengthy coaching career. Also, please note that "notoriety" implies fame for the wrong reasons; Al Capone was "notorious". In this case it might be better to say that Beilien has gained "recognition" rather than notoriety.
  • Personal life: I'm unhappy about this section. I think there are WP:BLPNAME issues, and also issues about the relevance/trivia of some of the information. Most of the final paragraph adds little of value to the article.

I'm sorry, Tony, if I haven't been able to provide much help. I've done my best, but it really isn't my area. I hope that you can pick up something from the review, however, and I wish the article success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your perspective and attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck the issues which are clearly resolved. As to the others, my lack of familiarity with the sport makes it difficult for me to comment constructively, so I'll leave these to be resolved by more knowlegeable reviewers. I hope I've been of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/John_Beilein/archive1&oldid=330841349"