Wikipedia

Talk:Jon Scheyer/Archive 1

< Talk:Jon Scheyer
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Comments

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Jon is absolutely notable enough to have a wikipedia page. He was one of the best prep players in Illinois basketball history, was one of the top recruits in the country, and is well on his way to becoming the next great Duke player (and in all likelihood the next great hated Duke white player). Although it is certainly true that he hasn't accomplished anything on the collegiate level yet, he is going to start at least a few guys for Duke this year as a Freshman. If this article gets deleted it is just going to have to be recreated again in a few months.

I concur, this guy is going to be excellent in college. Pepto gecko 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently added the religious designation of 'Jewish' in his player bio. While I happen to be a Christian, I hardly think that his faith is germane to this article. At the very least put it in some other context.Pepto gecko 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the fact that he is Jewish

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would toss back in the fact that he was Jewish. The fact that he is in the Jewish Hall of Fame is not enough (if that was the thinking), as they can honor non-Jews (as Yad Vashem famously honors non-Jews, though it is a memorial to the Jews in the Holocaust). Tx. --Epeefleche 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but a Jewish basketball star is not very common. I specifically came here to find out about his faith. If it's confirmed that he's Jewish, then I think it's ok for it to be in the article. 70.19.7.71 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is already an entry under awards for Scheyers induction into the Jewish Hall of Fame. I don't believe we need a seperate section /*Hall of Fame*/ to repeat this information. Вasil | talk 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that there is no need for redundancy. The one quibble that I have is that I would leave the Hall of Fame section, but remove any redundant information in the awards section. That is parallel with a great number of other bios that I have seen and edited. Tx. Epeefleche 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that and make it so. Вasil | talk
Great. Tx.--Epeefleche 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section and 2nd sentence of lead

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Epee, Can we/you/I incorporate the trivia into the article? Its more of a MOS issue. Also, the lead doesn't need the fluff from a high school source or whatever that is? That really dosen't improve the article. MAYBE that stuff can go under "playing style" ect or in the main body unless their are multiple really good reliable sources and not just stats, ect. Can we work here? Anyways, how's it going? Cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Done. (I always prefer, actually, that people instead of deleting spend a few moments getting the cites or redistributing the material ... seems a shame for good material to be deleted only because of failure of people to do those things). Am doing well ... you?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks better, imho. Well you know I am a deletionist, so I will have to move stuff to the talk page rather than delete, but anyways....Doing well, have a nice Turkey day if you go that way. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scheyer face?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we should add a Scheyer face section. This is a very notable thing he does.

I think it could go something like this:

Scheyer is famous among fans of rival teams for his unique facial expressions, known as "Scheyer faces".

Splintersag (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that his face was everywhere when he got elbowed in the eye and there was that picture of blood running down it? That was everywhere! 167.206.75.157 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unless there is consensus objection, I'll archive this page for everything older than 21 days.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments3 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Scheyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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.
  • 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)
  • 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)
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}}).
    • 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.
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

  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)

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)
  • 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)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Scheyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jon Scheyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Scheyer/Archive_1&oldid=1136853611"