Wikipedia:Peer review/2009–10 Duquesne Dukes men's basketball team/archive1

2009–10 Duquesne Dukes men's basketball team

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 wrote this article as part of a university project, and I would like some constructive feedback as to how I may improve this article and prepare it for formal assessment.

Thanks, Daniel Kemp (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

Hey there, thank you for the efforts to improve articles and prepare them for assessment. It's a nobel task and I'll happily review the article and give some feedback on ways to improve it. In my review I will assume that you are just starting out and would like insight and direction on article structure and MOS compliance. If the review is too rudimentary then I apologize. I'm going to make suggestions that would help bring the article to GA status. This would be a good first assessment goal.

See WP:LEAD, this will give you a good overview of what is supposed to be in the lead. Basically the lead is a summary of every point in brought up in the article. If you have written a good lead then I should be able to read just the lead and have a skeletal idea of what the article says. The body of the article then fills in the details. At this point your lead is one sentence. That's obviously not enough. For an article of this size at least two or perhaps three paragraphs would be an acceptable lead.
The Duquesne Dukes image needs a Fair-Use rationale. Click on the image and you'll see several of these rationales for each use of the image in various articles. Take a look at WP:FU for information on using non-free/copyrighted images in articles. Editors need to justify using a copyrighted image. If you need acceptable language to use take a look at 2000 Sugar Bowl article. This is a Featured Article. Click on the logo at the top of the article. The language used in this rationale can be tweaked to fit your image. The reason I direct you here rather than just to copy one of the other Fair Use rationales on the Duquesne Dukes' image page is because the Fair Use rationale for the Sugar Bowl was reviewed as part of the article's FA assessment. As such you are assured that it is properly worded and complete. In otherwords if it's good enough for an FA it's good enough for you.

Preseason

I went through a made a few edits to the "Preseason" section. If you compare it to the previous version in the history tab you can see what I did.
One important thing to remember is consistency. If you link some cities you need to link all of them. If you link some schools you need to link all of them.
I decapitalized (is that a word?) all the basketball positions, I don't think those are proper nouns, same with "freshman".
In writing articles it is important to use an active voice. Using terms like, "he would go on to transfer to..." is not as good as just saying "he transfered to...." Does that make sense?
Your referencing is very good, I'll speak to the format of your references later.
In the recruits table there is a section for Overall Recruiting Rankings with a colon, but nothing after it except notes and sources. Is there something else that is supposed to go here?
The Roster table looks good except I would not link to outside websites. If any of the players have an article on Wikipedia then link to them internally, the rest I would keep without a link. See WP:EL for thoughts on using external links, in short, use of external links in the body of the article is discouraged. You can also review WP:LINK for thoughts on both internal and external linking, it's a good source since there is so much linking opportunities it's sometimes hard to know when to and when not to link.

Coaching staff

The first paragraph steers off into recent history that really doesn't apply to this season. It also repeats information stated in the previous section. One of the GA Criteria is that the article remain focused. I would remove this first paragraph except the part about who the head coach is a perhaps a short summary of his career, focusing on his career at Duquesne.
It's also important to remove unnecessary detail. For example, Jason Byrd was in his third year as the basketball director isn't really important information. That he was the basketball director is fine, but for how long really doesn't make a difference unless there was a specific issue with his tenure. I removed this detail but look critically at the article and remove information that isn't really important to the subject. See WP:SS for writing in a summary style.

Regular season

I'd like you to look at the 1997–98 Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team article. This article is a GA. Notice the structure, with several sections outlining the games. There is no requirement that all college basketball articles look exactly the same but it is a good idea, when aiming to get an article up to a certain level, to look at similar articles that have attained that level and model your article after them. I know as a reviewer I will do that when I am assessing an article.
I would suggest rewriting this section using the structure found in the article above. Keep summary style in mind, no need to give too much detail, but you should give a basic outline of each game. Perhaps give a little more detail of key games or rivalry games and a little less detail for preseason/non-conference games with little impact on their season.
There is no need to link dates like November 7th. This isn't necessary unless there is a specific significance of the date and then the link should be to the article about the significant event. For example September 11th.
Another WP compliance issue is non-breaking spaces. If there is a number followed by a unit of measurement (inches, weeks, liters etc.) there should be a non breaking space signified by a   between the number and the unit of measurement. The reason for this is outlined in WP:NBSP so I won't go into detail. I fixed one place where I saw a need for it. Some GA reviewers hit on this issue others don't. Since on of the GA Criteria is MOS compliance I figured I'd bring it up.
"Duquesne scored a dominant 47-point victory..." Watch using words like "dominant". This can come off wrong. It starts to stray into issues of bias. See WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK for thoughts on words like this. It just isn't really necessary anyway.
"Despite the loss, the team went on the road to face Iowa on November 17th...." I'm confused, I thought the won the game prior to this game (November 13 against Nicholls State). Check the context on this I may have missed something. Also it doesn't make sense to say "Despite the loss, the team went on the road...." They would go on the road whether they lost or not right?
I don't think you need to keep a running total on Saunders' string of double-doubles nor is it necessary to identify when he did not get a double-double. It gets repetitive and doesn't add to the article much.
Watch use of abbreviations like IUPUI. Using an abbreviation is fine if it is spelled out the first time it is used in an article.
Who did Duquesne play in Dayton Ohio in front of a crowd of 13,435? The article doesn't say.
As I'm reading through this section I feel like your summary of each game is good but perhaps not enough detail. Some of the games are missing the final outcome, others are even missing the opponent.
Are there any details on what the alleged NCAA rules violation revolving around Bill Clark was?
"On the final play, Damian Saunders drove in before dishing it out to Melquan Bolding, who drained a 3-pointer to put the Dukes up by one with 3.5 seconds remaining."

Watch out for using sports terms in articles. "Dishing, draining, 3-pointer". These are terms that basketball folks will know but other people won't be familiar with. In writing it's difficult to walk that fine line between being informative and being interesting. This sentence sounds like a recap of the game by an ESPN analyst. Unfortunately it doesn't really work for an encyclopedia article.

What was the outcome of the game against the Colonials? This isn't spelled out in the article.
Who did they play on Feb. 11?
I'd remove the detail of what channel (ESPN2) the Feb 21st game was televised on. Our international readers won't really care and it isn't really an important detail. The fact that it was a nationally televised game is enough.
I would put the schedule table at the end of the article. It gives away their post season performance. Either that or I would move the Postseason section up to right after the Regular season section. That actually makes more sense. Then have the table and the statistics. That's what I would do.

Postseason

"Unfortunately for the Dukes, those two teams were also in a tie." Why specify that it was unfortunate for the Dukes? It was also unfortunate for the Bonnie right? I'd remove "for the Dukes".
"close until the Bonnies went on a 14–0 run" When in the game did this happen?
"Damian Saunders posted his 20th and final double-double of the year, but a 5 for 21 performance from beyond the 3-point arc and 57.1% free throw shooting only exacerbated St. Bonaventure's 75% 3-point shooting and two players scoring in the upper twenties."

This sentence is poorly written. First off poor shooting on Duquesne's part wouldn't exacerbate good shooting on St. Bonaventure's part. I don't think you're using the word "exacerbate" correctly here. Since you don't have a free throw percentage for the Bonnies I would leave it out for the Dukes. Instead I would compare the 3-point shooting of the two teams as the story of the game.

I made some prose edits to this section. Other than what is already said the section is pretty good.
One section that is missing is something about the controversies faced by the team. Sprinkled throughout the article are mentions of NCAA rules violations, a suspension for robbery and then this final suspension of Clark for a "conduct" issue. Are there any credible sources that give more detail? I was left wanting to know more about these issues.

Notes

See WP:CITE for information on referencing. It is important when using a website to use a {{cite web}} template (see WP:CIT for citation templates). This template requires the title of the article, the publisher (usually the website name like ESPN.com), and the accessdate (date you last accessed the website). Other good information would be the date of the article, the authors first and last name and the work (if it's a magazine it would be the title of the magazine). See the format of the references in the 1997–98 Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team article as an example of what I'm talking about.
Be sure you are using credible sources. Blogs are suspect so make sure the blog is neutral and is supported by outside sources rather than someone's opinion. See WP:Verifiability for thoughts on the credibility of sources.
You should probably add categories at the bottom of the article. See the 2009–10 New Mexico Lobos men's basketball team article as an example.

Overall

The article is well-written, I've mentioned some areas for additional information and I tightened up a prose a little bit. I think the article could use a thorough copy-edit by someone who is versed in grammar and prose issues. This article will be an excellent way for you to learn many of the MOS policies as it covers many of the major chapters in the Manual of Style. Please feel free to comment or ask questions about this review and I'll be happy to help out where I can. Good luck with the article and your future editing. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]