Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team 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 envision this as a potential FA-class article, but it could use some more eyes.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article deserves consideration. It is very detailed and has a lot of info about every weeks game. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some advice on images. We don't have images for most of the players, but Tom Brady and Anthony Thomas have images. Should we add more recent professional football images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it would be a good idea to have later pictures of players, except in the "Players" section about them gonig on to NFL careers.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrapedApe's review

Overall, a great job. I read through the lead, background, award season, and the tables. I made some quick changes myself, here.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • "Michigan was declared the national champion by the..." This sentence has a reference, which is probably unnecessary for a lead, as long as that fact is covered in the artcle.
    • ...totaled 8 interceptions, James Hall who totaled..." Try varying those verbs.
    • Third paragraph has two sentences that start with "It..." There should be a better way to start those sentences.
  • "Background"
    • I'm not sold on starting the section with a discussion of the Rose Bowl, since the Rose Bowl came at the end of the season, plus that sentence doesn't have anything to do with the team's season itself. Try taking those sentences and making them another paragraph later in the section.
    • "The team lost three linemen in the..." Were these players who were lost fromn the previous season? It should be clarified.
    • "Only junior right offensive tackle Jon Jansen, who...been on the sidelines with a ruptured appendix". These two sentences could use some references.
      • This section has also been reworked by a third party. The ref at the end of the paragraph covers the content that you challenge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other
    • Chris Ziemann, DeWayne Patmon could probably be notable enough for an article.
    • References #69, #70, #71 are strangely placed. Is there a better way to cite those tables?
  • Award season
    • Don't start a sentence with a numerical number, like "56 of the previous 61 winners..." Also, I'm not sure that's really all that important of a fact.
    • Can you reference the vote totals?

Jweiss11's comments moved from TonyTheTiger's talk page

I had a couple thoughts about the 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team article.

  • First, the records you put in the box scores reflect records after the decision of that game. The standard in Template:Infobox NCAA football yearly game for articles about individual games seems to be to list records going into the game. See 1998 Rose Bowl for an example. The box scores should probably employ this standard. Also, you've included references in each of the box score headers. I think in all cases, these references are cited again in the body of that section, so those references can probably be dropped, which will improve the look of the article.
  • Second, I realized that the '97 Michigan team beat four coaches who have since been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame: Hayden Frye, Joe Paterno, Barry Alvarez, and John Cooper. Plus Nick Saban is likely going to be there one day. Might make for an neat tidbit to work in somewhere.

Jweiss11 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from cbl62

This is the most important Michigan football team in the past 60 years, and it deserves a first-rate article. Tony has done an outstanding job compiling the facts and game-by-game accounts. I've worked on the lead section today, trying to improve the flow and focus it on the truly key points. The format is now in four paragraphs consisting of: para 1) overview/national championship; para 2) defensive unit overview; para 3) offensive unit overview; and para 4) miscellaneous awards and background.

The body of the article still needs some work. There are some VERY long paragraphs, for example, the game summaries. It would be helpful to flow and readability if some of this was broken down into more readable (and less intimidating) chunks. Though potentially controversial, I also think that the article would benefit from streamlining a bit by eliminating some of the less significant details. Will continue to pitch in as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two smaller points: 1) I think the Anthony Thomas photo should be deleted. It shows him from the back side in a Bills uniform and is not particularly useful to this article; and 2) Though I don't feel strongly, I tend to think the schedule should precede the Background section. Many readers (myself included) rely on the schedule being placed immediately after the lead section in team articles. The schedule is in some ways a supplement tothe lead in that it provides a birds-eye overview of the season. Pushing it further down into the text makes it more difficult to find. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and switched a higher value foto of Dhani Jones in place of the rear-view A. Thomas in Bills uniform. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "The team led the Big Ten Conference in scoring defense for conference games (19.8 points per game) and all games (16.5)." This doesn't jive with the actual scoring figures. The team allowed only 114 points all season for an average of 9.6 points per game. Accordingly, the "points per game" figures reflected in the article appear to be erroneous. Cbl62 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the points per game figures (9.8 conference games, 9.5 all games). The cited reference points to the right place in the Big Ten media guide. The numbers were just not entered correctly. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further suggestion: Delete the "Players selected in the 1998 NFL Draft" section. It's a subset of Team members advancing to the NFL and doesn't add materially to the article. Getting rid of one of the charts will also help with flow and reduce reduncancy. Cbl62 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most high quality (GA, FA) college football team articles are expected to enumerate draftees. This content should remain in the article although it might be merged with the NFL content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the content of the two charts seems like the best solution. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on my comment that there are parts of the article that are unnecessarily laden with extraneous details, here's an example of the type of detail that IMO can/should be removed. The section on Week 5 opens with a discussion of Steve Fisher's firing. While a point of interest to UM fans, it is extraneous to an encyclopedia article on the 1997 football team. I'd suggest deleting this sentence and others with similar extraneous information. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which is preferred, but there should be consistency with the treatment of one-digit numbers. The article goes back and fourth between "1-yard gain" or "3-yard ..." and in other cases using "two-yard ...", etc. Also, there's inconsistency in spacing, including the number of spaces between sentences. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing a masterful job at cleaning this up. Whichever way you go with the numbers is fine with me. I think maybe we should use numerical because in some cases these are in sentences with larger numbers that must be numerical. If you can remember add   between ### and the word yards when saying something like He passed for ### passing yards or ran for ## yards. I remembered sometimes and forgot others. At WP:FAC they will require consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now pretty much finished my re-working of the following sections: Lead, Background, and Statistical achievements. The individual game summary sections still require some copy-editing/tightening, if anyone wants to give it a shot. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably our guy. I have compiled a bunch of facts and the Jman seems to be handling the tables. I am watching to make sure what you are doing is Kosher, but the first couple of games have been great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright note from Raeky

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/1997_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team/archive1&oldid=1074688609"