Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. It'll be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive.

My first question is why is there no meaningful prose in the article body? To me, apart from the lead, it seems that the article is near-entirely composed of tables and statistics about watchlists/awards/tournament tables, but there is no actual discussion of the matches and events of the season. Looking at a couple of other GAs, like 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season and 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season, there is dedicated prose coverage of the events of the "Regular season". I think this sort of section should be included in this article. Putting this review on hold until this is implemented. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• You seem to have a strong preference for presentation like 2008–09_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Preseason rather than 2018–19_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Preseason. Honestly, I find the latter much easier to understand. I think over the years the editors seem to have developed an affinity for table presentation of this type of content. Is there an WP:MOS consideration making one right and the other wrong?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't know that there is a compelling reason to have a lot of individual game discussions in this article. It is suppose to summarize achievements and highlights of the season. It should summarize awards, tournament results, and rankings to level set the conferences teams in the broader sport. There could be a bit more prose sprinkled in among the tables, but I don't know if the old article is really so right. I may need to throw in a few more refs here and there, but I am not sure that significant content is missing. I'll be making some changes, but probably not going to make it look so much like the older version.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • It is suppose to summarize achievements and highlights of the season. No, it is supposed to discuss the season as a whole TonyTheTiger; I don't know why you would assume that "achievements and highlights" are all that are needed in an article about a season.
  • Is there an WP:MOS consideration making one right and the other wrong? Well, there is something stronger than MOS: the policy WP:NOTSTATS states that "statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context", while WP:INDISCRIMINATE states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". On the other hand, NOTSTATS also states that articles consisting entirely of statistics can exist, but should be considered lists, which are not eligible to be GAs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• It should not take much to summarize the tables.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Since MOS consideration was specifically requested, MOS:TABLES says: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Hi Tony, just checking if you're planning to continue work on this article, as it's been a week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Yes. I spent my time today working on Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1, which you can have another look at now. I'll get to this one this weekend.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• I gave this some time today. Any feedback?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Still work to be done, I'm afraid TonyTheTiger. Take the "Preseason" section: with the exception of the "poll" subsection, it is way too heavy on tables and statistics; the first three tables could easily be prosified, which would make it much more accessible (especially as the tables currently aren't formatted per MOS:DTAB). And the "Regular season" section is nowhere close to the quality of 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season#Regular season. For me, a significant amount of prose is not optional especially at GA, and the discussion at WT:CBBALL came to the same conclusion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
    • I am juggling a bunch of balls here. I might not get back to this one for a few days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
      • I'll increase the "on hold" period to two weeks; if there is no improvement by then, I will fail the review. Is that alright? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
        • 2 weeks from what date?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
          • The day the review opened, so let's say 00:00 UTC on 5 April. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• In my experience with GA, it seems a little bit strict after the amount of progress that I have made to be placing a drop dead date already. Usually, that is reserved for someone who has made no effort in the first week. I spent a lot of time digging up sources. I have personally never been put on or put someone else on such a short leesh who has demonstrated significant progress.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think significant progress has been made; if we get to 5 April and that has changed, I'll be more than happy to extend the deadline. My initial review mainly considered prose-table weighting; I don't think adding sources should be considered progress as that should have been done before nomination per WP:GANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This diff shows the progress between 30 March and now; it mostly consists of adding another table and a couple of paragraphs to explain tables. My points above have not been addressed at all; I will thus be failing this nomination. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.