Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) .

Tommy Amaker

Tommy Amaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the requirements. This is part of my attempt to put basketball back on the map at WP:FAC. Recently, my nomination of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 was the first WP:NBA article to become an WP:FA in almost 4 years. WP:CBBALL has gone through a similar drought aside from nominally associated articles such as Jackie Robinson and Otto Graham.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. the recent WP:PR reviewer, Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), suggested that I have someone else take a look at the article. I was able to get Finetooth (talk · contribs) to do a copyedit. Both the PR and the copyedit helped the article a great deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment didn't take a deeper look, but the red links (one right in the lead!) might be a problem when other reviewers arrive... igordebraga ≠ 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Slashed dates (e.g. "Harvard's highest poll rankings AP (22, 1/2/12) and Coaches (21, 1/2/12 & 2/6/12)") are ambiguous and should be replaced. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – I'm seeing a number of picky issues early in the article, which leaves me concerned about what else is in there

  • I've heard complaints elsewhere on this site that people couldn't understand "winningest", so I wouldn't put that in the lead.
  • Last word of "Ivy League Championships" shouldn't be capitalized.
  • "As a head coach, he took Seton Hall Pirates men's basketball to postseason tournaments...". I'd imagine this should be either "took the Seton Hall Pirates men's basketball team" or a simpler "took the Seton Hall Pirates".
  • En dash needed in 2003-04.
  • AP should probably be spelled out later in the lead.
  • Junior year: Obvious redundancy in "The seven steals in a championship game was a championship game record..." that could stand some more variety.
  • "That year, Amaker served as spokesman against drug and alcohol abuse...". Needs "a" before "spokesman".
  • Senior year: "for the 86–87 Blue Devils." I think style guidelines would call for at least the first number in the range to be four digits.
  • No need for two 1987 NCAA Tournament links in this section.
  • Accomplishments: "Although his single-season assists records was surpassed...". "was" → "were".
  • Ref 81 is a dead link. Let me know if you need help with this one; my library subscriptions from college include the Sporting News. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I found another ref that makes the same point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Duke: Ref 62 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark.
      • Seton Hall: "where they lost in the first round to the Old Dominion and again finished 15–15." Second "the" could use removal.
      • Two commas come after Eddie Griffin's name, and one should be removed (the one before the parenthetical bit).
      • "The Pirates were ranked high on many experts pre-season rankings." "experts" → "experts'".
      • "record" is needed after "and finished with a 22–10".
      • Another "the" needs removal in "to the Alabama."
      • Michigan: The 2004–05 team record and conference finish need a cite. So do a couple other parts at the ends of paragraphs in this section.
      • Harvard: The recruiting restrictions from the summer of 2010 are mentioned twice in the section. I don't think the second mention is needed after a whole paragraph has been dedicated to the issue.
        • I accidentally moved it from the LEAD not seeing the 2010 content bunched with the 2008 content. I had forgotten about the content even being in the article at all. Now content is properly distributed between 2008, 2010 and the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      • "which was school's first men's basketball Ivy League championship...". Needs "the" before "school's".
      • ""Co-champion" shouldn't be capitalized.
      • "The team was also ranked 21st in the Coaches Poll On February 6." "On" shouldn't be capitalized either.
      • 68-62 needs an en dash for the score range. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support' after I fixed a ref without publisher, can't see no problems. (one might find strange the lack of authors in most, but given they're made by AP, it's no big deal) igordebraga ≠ 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with pause. During the above-mentioned PR, I had some minor quibbles and disagreed with the main editor over minor issues, such as some of the content in the "Personal life" section. For example, I didn't think that where Amaker eats breakfast is notable enough to include, and Tony disagreed. As I told him at the time, I wanted to wait for what future reviews here at FAC would say about it. As a result, I'm willing to give this article my support until others chime in about this, but I've never thought that it should stop things from moving forward here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm now good with the changes as per Giants2008's comments below. I'm still not completely happy with some of the other content in the "Personal life" section, and have gone on the record about that in my PR, but it doesn't seem to be an issue with most of the reviewers here thus far, so I'm fine with keeping it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Further comment – I came back to strike the remaining comments and offer support, but on a second look the personal life section is bothering me in the same way that Christine questioned. For me, the sentences about the sauce his mother makes for him are not encyclopedic at all. Merely being "a finicky eater" doesn't strike me as worthy of inclusion in a biography. I can see having the Harvard breakfasts included to have a mention of Amaker's off-court activities for comprehensiveness purposes, but the sauce is pushing it in my view. Although I won't oppose over the presence of the information, I'd like to see those sentences reduced or removed before supporting promotion. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Comments - reading through now. queries below. feel free to revert my changes if they guff things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
My initial thoughts were on hte sauce was that it was a nice way of engaging the reader and was useful on that basis to add some colour to the article.
Thanks for the support. I hope not to have to cut any more in response to comments above by others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
...set numerous records and earned many recognitions. - what are "recognitions"? Is this a basketball-specific term?
Changed to honors and awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
the NCAA ruled that Amaker had committed recruiting violation --> "the NCAA ruled that Amaker had committed a recruiting violation" ?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
what is Sweet Sixteen
I added (regional semifinals).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
In the tournament he barely played in at least one game and started in at least one. - worded funny - not sure where the emphasis is supposed to be.
This content has been an issue prior discussions (WP:PR and/or WP:GAC). Could you look at the source and make a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
How about - "He played in two games in the tournament, the first on-field for a mere two minutes against Puerto Rico, but he played a prominent role in the USA's win over Italy."
I modified it slightly, but I swapped that in essentially.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Overall, this looks fairly solid and I do not intend a full review. However, just glancing at it, I noticed a few glaring prose issues, which I am surprised to see so far into a nomination. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • 6 instances of "as a" or "as an" in the lead, including twice beginning consecutive sentences in this way. "As a(n)" used 24 times throughout article.
  • In the lead alone, there seem to be a few too many sentences which begin simply "he" or "the", which makes the prose choppy.
  • In "Early years", the last sentence of the first paragraph begins "although", as does the first sentence the next paragraph.
  • Paragraph starts: We have "During" beginning two paragraphs quite close together. Then in "Coaching career", we have three consecutive paragraphs which begin "In [year]", then two beginning "The 19xx-xx Seton Hall team earned", then after an intervening paragraph, "The 2000-01 Seton Hall team earned". Then in "Michigan", we have "Amaker's 2003-04 team earned …", "The 2004-05 team", "The 2005-06 team", "Amaker's 2006-07 team earned". Then in "Harvard", we have three paragraphs which begin "On [date], Amaker['s]…"
  • And just an overall impression, without reading too closely, is that too many sentences begin "He", "Amaker", with another noun or pronoun, or with a simple adverbial phrase (In…, During…,). This is worth looking at more carefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not averse to a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think it particularly needs one, it is just worth watching out for variety in sentence and paragraph openings. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
        • All my concerns taken care of now. I have not read the whole article carefully enough to do a full review or to support, but there are no major issues that I have noticed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – The only reason I withheld my support after the resolution of my previous comments was to see if I could do something about the paragraph beginnings that were mentioned above. I introduced a little more variety, which I'm comfortable with. There's still a little too much trivial personal info for my tastes, but it's a matter of opinion and I won't withhold my backing over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (own work released as CC, PD).

Sources review (beginning) I've started this, but am having difficulty with some links, particularly with PDFs which keep giving me timeouts. I hope this is a local problem that will soon subside. Anyway, thus far, from the first column:

  • Ref 1 link returns "page not found"
    • Fixed (by adding replacing a single ref with two—43 & 44— throwing off subsequent number references below).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 22: This is a huge site. Page no should be provided. Also, why is "Duke University" linked here, rather than in the earlier ref. 4?
  • Ref 23: link page has a different title from the one cited. Is this the right page?
    • I wasn't sure what title to use. This is like a monthly archive of daily blogs and the daily blog I use is in the middle of the list under the title given.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I follow now: "Lawson steals the record" is the title of the fourth item down - no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 27: I know the sources says "Unites States", but this is obviously an error which doesn't have to be repeated in your citations list
    • Your choice, but it would be simpler for the reader if you made the allowable correction. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I will persevere with the remaining cols. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuing:

The article is certainly referenced comprehensively, and so far as I can see, with the odd exception referred to above, these are appropriate and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • All reference issues dealt with. The article is good to go in that respect. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Pls check your dup links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks