Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Dabomb87 01:49, 8 October 2010 [1].

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team

edit

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Cbl62, Jweiss11

I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the finest college football season articles on WP. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify co-nom status: [2] [3]. Please do not add co-noms to avoid the one-nom-at-a-time rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jweiss11, see User_talk:Jweiss11#1997_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team. Note his 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) comment. Still looking for CBL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For CBL, User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_48#Remy_Hamilton notes that he is willing to help out on a co-nom on any Championship season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: For me this is a WP:CUP eligible nomination and if it is to be promoted, it would be helpful to have it close by the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used the dab tool and it shows no disambiguation links. Dincher (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I only have time to check the lead tonight. I will do the rest on Thursday evening. Here's what I have found so far.
Lead

  1. why just one reference in the lead. I favor more or none.
    I have gone with none.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. in the Woodson sentence is 'rusher' the best word? I guess, but it's not often used in football. 'rushed for a touchdown', yes, but not rusher, was he lined up a runningback?
    No. He was a rusher on end arounds and reverses. Would you prefer ballcarrier?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Dincher (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted this change back to "rusher". A player is a ball carrier whether he's rushing, receiving, or returning. "Rusher" is perfectly acceptable football lingo; see: [4]. Rush/rusher does not necessarily mean that the player in question was a running back or lined up as a running back. Rush (American football) makes that point well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs) 11:33, October 6, 2010
  3. Did Woodson score on any of his interceptions?
    No. Team stats are at the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. On offense, .... I don't really like prepositions at the beginning of a sentence. suggest - The Michigan offense or the Wolverine offense.
    Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With 437 receiving yards,.... another preposition at the beginning of a sentence.
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The last sentence is very long, it's a run on sentence. Dincher (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not a fan of "rusher" I have watched countless hours of football in my life and rarely have a heard the word rusher except when preceded by pass. And that is a whole different position and side of the ball. Maybe you could say had touchdowns on receptions, runs and returns or something like that. Dincher (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is "touchdowns via pass reception, runs from scrimmage and punt return"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Dincher (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. So where do you stand on this nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only looked over the lead so far. I can't get to the rest until tomorrow. Dincher (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are too many issues with the nomination and article. This is a fine article, but I just don't think it's ready for FA. I feel like this should still be at peer review and that it is being rushed for the WikiCup. Dincher (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the issues with the nomination are resolved since Cbl62 has edited most of the things he felt needed addressing in the last 24 hours. It would be helpful, if you could at least point out substantive issues with the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    • I have to ask the standard complaint again.... Why is there no information on team tactics/gameplan/strategy/footballing philosophy/playing style? Apart from one sentence in the first match about the defensive tactic, it doesn't go into any detail on how the gameplan was implemented, unless one is to believe that all teams play in the same way, and suppose even if they play in the same structure, there are variations from team to team. Obviously there are some stats about being the most effective in certain measures of performance, but how did they achieve this? Suppose they had the most effective attack. Did they achieve this with 1) bulldozer-tactics and squashing the opposition? 2) attacking in the air 3) lots of speedy players who can sidestep defenders? Different sportspeople have different skills so they achieve their statistical success by different means.
    • Also, what's with the flamboyant prose "razzle-dazzle" and other bits of informal language?
    • If you use "Fighting Irishmen" shouldn't you explain which team is nicknamed as such before just writing it down as a standalone?
    • In one place 21-3 is not dashed properly YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Comments from cbl62. A few comments on some issues that still remain unresolved from the prior peer review here.
  • Tony has done a great job compiling the facts. I've worked on several of the sections over the past couple months to improve the flow and focus it on the truly key points. It still requires some work in that regard. The sections IMO that are in the greatest need of trimming an honing are the Penn State, Ohio State and Rose Bowl game summaries. At my suggestion, Tony has done some trimming, but more is needed. One example of an extraneous fact that can be dropped is the discussion of the Florida State/North Carolina game that does not involve Michigan. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you are unbeaten in week 9 all games involving unbeatens are extremely relevant to your championship drive. This introduces part of the national title landscape by mentioning this game the way it is in week 9.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Penn State and Ohio State game summaries lacks opening sentences that describe the game; I have added introductory sentences to prior game summaries. Some sort of introductory clause or sentence helps the reader place the section in context. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent 3-plus hours today re-working the PSU and OSU sections. They flow better now IMO without any loss of relevant substance. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the 1998 Rose Bowl in this article remains far longer than the actual article on the 1998 Rose Bowl. I suggest moving the bulk of the discussion to the main article on 1998 Rose Bowl and having a significantly streamlined discussion in this article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just the length. IMO the Rose Bowl summary needs further work. I've spent about four hours on the article today, and that's about all I have for it today. I'll keep pitching in as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates with respect to one-digit numbers. I was taught that one digit numbers should be spelled out ("seven") and multi-digit numbers should be displayed numerically (11). Currently, the article uses a numeric display for most one-digit numbers. Is there a Wikipedia style preference on this point? Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be traveling over the next several days but will try to do further clean-up as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, when a co-nominator says the article isn't ready, the FAC is withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will monitor feedback from others. I think the article is pretty close and that I may be able to address the remaining issues. I will watch the nom over the next few days and decide about withdrawal by the end of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care either way about having "co-nominator" status. I have spent many, many hours trying to improve the article, and I think it's one of the most important Michigan football articles. IMO it's still not the best it can be, but I'm willing to keep helping as time permits. I know Tony wanted this to be processed this month so he can get credit for WikiCup. I don't want to hold him back from that, so if it helps Tony accomplish his goal, I'm happy to withdraw as a "co-nominator" and let the review proceed on the merits. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for you to withdraw. The hope is that this nom will help us focus on bringing the article to the highest standard. I hope the reviewers will return to an analysis of the content and not whether procedural hoops were properly jumped through.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did some more editing. Are you satisfied with the article now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It does not appear that one of the individuals named as a co-nom in fact explictly agreed to do that, and in any event does not believe it is ready. Finishing touches and cleanup should occur before nomination. Co-noms should not be added without all nominators joining in. This article should be archived. Kablammo (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As “a nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate . . . a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn”, and one of the persons listed as a co-nominator has indicated that the article still requires some work, it may be archived. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive43#Allow_FAC_delegates_to_quick_fail_unprepared_articles.
No one should be listed as a co-nominator without explicit consent. This does not appear to be the only article where that has occurred. [5], [6], and especially [7] A co-nomination is voluntary, not a draft. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He had been a co-nominator at FAC1 and did not properly contact me to express lack of continued interest.
It would help me to determine the preparedness of this article if you had substantive issues that I could determine the difficulty of resolving. I am going to watch for three or four days of feedback and determine whether to withdraw based on substantive feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to Cbl62 and request for third party opinions.
  • First off. Thanks for getting involved again. I hope we can get this cleaned up by the end of the month.
  • Week 9: I continue to feel that "The day was notable as only the fourth time in the 62 year history of the AP Poll that 4 of the top 5 teams in the poll were facing each other as 8–0 Florida State and North Carolina met in an Atlantic Coast Conference battle." adds context to the season by describing the landscape of 5 unbeatens about to be whittled down to 3 late in the season.
  • Week 11: Similarly with Since 1935, when the annual Michigan – Ohio State rivalry game was moved to be the last game of the Big Ten season for each team, 36 previous games had the potential to determine the conference champion, making this game the 37th time. This was the eighth time that both schools were ranked among the top five entering the game. In each of the prior two seasons underdog Michigan teams beat undefeated Ohio State teams to conclude the Big Ten season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object largely for the reasons stated by YellowMonkey above. The article is heavy on tabular data and sports-page synopses, but extremely light on strategic and tactical detail, coaching/team philosophy, and so on. It's about what I would expect from picking up the weekly game programs but not doing much serious research. It's clearly been lovingly compiled by a Michigan fan, but it's not enough to meet the criteria for comprehensiveness and quality of research. Am I reading correctly that this is being pushed through for some competition? I don't think that's a good idea. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:32, 7 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1997_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team/archive1&oldid=1086103764"