Wikipedia

Talk:Jon Scheyer/GA1

< Talk:Jon Scheyer
Latest comment: 14 years ago by MuZemike in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments3 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 23:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe I've now addressed all GA review issues. But let me know if you disagree. Also, this may interest you. Tx for the review.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
MoS issues
  • The lead is too long. For an article this size per WP:LEAD, it should be either about two full paragraphs or three shorter paragraphs. Just cut it down a little bit.
  • Hi. I went to wp:lead, and see that the appropriate length of the lead section of a 32 kilobyte article is two or three paragraphs. This article is almost exactly twice that size (61 kilobytes), so I had thought that it certainly deserves more than the 2/3 para range, and the 3/4 para range should be fine. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I took out unnecessary verbiage. I would consider shortening the following passage: "Scheyer is a 2009–10 consensus All-American (Second Team) and Wooden and Lowe’s Senior First Team All-American, and was named to the All-America Second Teams of the Associated Press, National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC), Sporting News, and the U.S. Basketball Writers Association (USBWA).[6][7][8][9] He was a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team and NCAA South All-Regional Team, and the 2009–10 NABC and USBWA All-District teams.[8][8][9][9]" I would just say he was a 2nd team consensus A-A with a link to the 2010 A-A article. In place of the sentence with all the detail, which can be left for the main body. In the second sentence I would eliminate All-District teams and All-Regional team from his lead, but you can leave them in the main body. You have to tighten this up because in two months the fourth paragraph will be about the NBA. That should cut it down enough to pass here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • You can keep the fourth paragraph as it is for now, but if you want to manage deletion that will occur when he becomes a pro, you should whittle it down to just his records and merge it with the third paragraph. You can wait until draft day to do this as far as I am concerned, but if the reviewer wants it shorter now, that is the next stuff to go.
  • Agreed. Hopefully the reviewer will allow it to stay until draft day, considering the deletions made and the above guidance.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I would seriously consider collapsing many of the sections in the infobox due to layout concerns. My recommendation would be to collapse most or all of the "Career highlights" in the infobox.
  • Hi. I've tried using the collapse script I use, to collapse the Career highlights in the infobox, but it doesn't work within a table. Nor does the table collapse script I found work for part of a table. Can someone point me to a script that would work? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm happy to agree with Tony (who I know has worked on many similar GAs), if MuZemike agrees. I'll also note that: a) Tony has pared down the highlights considerably from what we had before; and b) the infobox will likely change in this regard in any event shortly, as if Scheyer becomes an NBA player he will have a different infobox with different criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Taking another look, it's not really borking the current layout, so I suppose that's fine as far as GAN is concerned. It's just that the infobox extends almost to 1/3 of the article's length is what bugs me, but this isn't the only article on WP that does that :) –MuZemike 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Prose issues
  • Many of the paragraphs are too short and choppy, which detracts from the quality of the prose. What is needed in the article is longer, fuller paragraphs, which makes the writing look more professional to readers.
  • I believe we've now addressed all short/choppy paragraphs, but let me know if I'm wrong.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • In the "College career" section, first paragraph, He picked Duke despite the fact that when he was in junior high school he had really disliked its team, because all his friends liked Duke and he wanted to be different. → It's not very well written, and the usage of despite doesn't make it sound necessarily neutral. Can you rewrite this sentence to make it more clear and not twisty and wordy?
  • I noticed that you do have quite a bit of quoted material in the article. If it's possible to get a few of them paraphrased instead of directly quoted, please do so. (I understand for many of them that won't be possible due to the nature of some of the quotes.)
  • Changed some quotes to non-quote text, and trimmed other quotes. Left as quotes language that was especially colorful or flavorful or where changes to text would not seem to improve the sense of what is being communicated.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Please review the usage of commas to link two independent clauses together to form compound sentences. They are to be used when both clauses can stand alone as separate sentences, and they are not used when one of them cannot.
  • Thanks. I've reviewed all the commas, deleted some, and believe that the remaining commas either serve the function of linking independent clauses, or some other proper function discussed at comma. Please let me know if there are any remaining that you believe improper.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Image issues
Verifiability issues
  • References 17, 42, and 60, and 73 are all deadlinks. I believe these are all from newspaper (print) sources, so what you need to do is to find the dates of those print sources, who wrote them, etc. Cite them as you would a print source (i.e. using {{cite news}}).
  • I think I've now addressed them all with links and/or replacements. Pls let me know if there are any outstanding. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • That being said above, all of the links to the Chicago Tribune articles no longer work, but you do have dates and titles for these, so you're pretty much there with these newspaper sources.
  • I think that I now have working links replacing all but one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • With Ref #17, there's no title or nothing behind this, i.e. no title, newspaper, website, anything. You must provide information for this source if you can, either print or otherwise.
  • Ref #26 (another Chicago Tribune citation who URL no longer works) needs more information.
  • Ref #27 (Highschoolelite.com) doesn't look very reliable.
  • That's actually the Chicago high school basketball site of Frank Rusnak, sportswriter covering high school basketball for the Chicago Sun Times. See, e.g., this article of his in the paper and this one. Tony may know of him as well, since he is a Chicago bball fan, and perhaps he can give some input. If it's a definite no-no, though, I'll delete the ref and text (the text doesn't seem that controversial, though ... which I think also may militate in favor of keeping it). Just let me know your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • One way you could address this is to say "According to the personal website of Chicago Sun-Times journalist Frank Rusnak,. . ."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • MuZ--Your call. To my mind, that would certainly (if necessary) be better than deleting, since the sentence adds a little color from a non-coach as to what he was like as a high school player. But I'll defer to whatever your judgment is. Tony -- tx for helping out.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • That should be fine; I wasn't aware that he was an established editor for a major newspaper. He should be trusted enough in that case, just as with the reference from Illhoops.com on Ref #95. –MuZemike 07:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I doubt Ref #67 ("The Big Lead") is a reliable source, even though the other sources proceeding that one are more than enough to make up for the information.
  • Happy to remove if you like (which I gather you do). The reason I included it is that it was the url that the RS Sports Illustrated pointed to for the matter that I discuss there. But happy to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • As I said above, it's probably better left out. I'm seeing most of the same stuff being mentioned in the following sources anyways, which I would view a more reliable (i.e. both Chicago newspapers) than this here; the following sources seem to also cover the exact same stuff. –MuZemike 07:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Conclusions

Reviewing – I've just started this review, but the couple of issues I noted above are the first two issues I have noticed right off the bat. More will be coming. –MuZemike 23:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

On hold pending the improvements above. (If I find something else, I will post above.) I helped you about with roughly half the prose in the article, so that will give you a good start.

I helped you out a little bit on the paragraphing in the first half of the article; I'll leave you to do the "2009-10" subsection onward. –MuZemike 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Many thanks. Great to see that you are one of the very helpful reviewers, who act as teammates in bringing the article up to snuff. Much appreciated (not all are like that). I was at the same time working from the bottom up, as luck would have it!--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I should have rounded out the verifiability issues noted above. Those will need to be addressed before I can consider passing. –MuZemike 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Passed – Keep in mind about the citation formatting, and make sure they're consistent in usage. You may wish to do some more copyediting as well so that the prose is the best it can be. Finally, you may wish to consider taking some further action in the lead after reading WP:LEADCITE as citations in the lead may distract some readers (i.e. if the material is already cited in the article's body, you don't need to have the repeated material in the lead cited). Anyways good work (and in short order after Duke winning the NCAA title) with the article. –MuZemike 15:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Other things (separate, not counted against this GA review)
  • ESPN is not italicized.
  • Actually, that has not been addressed; you went back and italicized them again. ESPN is a media outlet and not a print publication (not to be confused with ESPN The Magazine which is print) and does not get italicized. Please go back and correct those. –MuZemike 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ahah. My bad. I had not undertood that by "is not" you meant "should not be". Got it. Now addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Many of your inline citations are inconsistently formatted, which will give you problems down the road as far as A-Class for even FAC is concerned.

Epeefleche, You can research the Chicago Tribune on www.chipublib.org to fix your deadlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Scheyer/GA1&oldid=358661263"