Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches/archive1

List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good candidate for a Featured List nomination. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of NMajdan's comments. On the ones where I have differing thoughts, my comments are noted below. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is a little short. Consider expanding it; you can look at other lists for help.
• You switch around between multiple date formats in your references. Either use January 1, 2010 or 2010-01-01.
  •  Done I went with January 1, 2010. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Consider splitting our your notes and references; refs 1 & 2 contains notes in parenthetical form - I've never seen it done that way.
  •  Done Notes are now split out. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Several refs are missing authors. Is this info available?
• Ref 8 is missing author and date. While authors is optional, I don't think date is.
• Refs 11, 15, 21, 34, 40, 41 needs an access date.
  •  Done Fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 19: North"".
  •  Done Fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 33: {{{1}}} - typo and p. should be plural since there is more than one page.
  •  Done Fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 37 needs to be formatted correctly.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• The navboxes need to contain a direct link to the article. Modify the head coaches one so the title links to this list. Same thing for the main football navbox.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Is the "No coaches" entry needed? This is a list of coaches so do you really need to include when they didn't have a coach?

I think it's helpful for the reader who may look at the chart as an overall program history to see that there were a number of years in which there was no coach. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• The # column sorting appears to be broken.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• OT column sorting is incorrect. Sorts 10 in between 1 and 2.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Use em dashes for the blank cells in the table; you're currently using both em dashes and hyphens.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• The "Statistical leaders" section seems redundant. All that information can be seen in the table.

I don't feel strongly on this one. I added the "statistical leaders" for ease of display and for the benefit of readers who may not be versed in sorting charts. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is the "Profiles" section needed? All that can be seen by visiting the article of the coach. Some of these seem two short to justify a whole section. I have never been a fan of sections or paragraphs with only a couple sentences. The two sentences in the HoF Inductees section could be moved to the lead.

It's a matter of style. Many of the similar lists have a longish narrative section at the start without sections. My personal style preference is that (a) detailed information about each coach is available in their individual bios, but the idea here is to present a very short highlight summary on the major accomplishments of each coach giving the reader a broad overview, (b) sections help make the information more accessible and digestible, (c) I have no problem with short paragraphs, and if you look at major newspapers like the NYT and LAT, one and two sentence paragraphs are quite common, and (d) . Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• The last couple of sentences in RR's section need sources.
• Move RR's picture up a few sections so it doesn't bleed into the references section. Also, I typically prefer to put the current coach's picture in the lead.
  •  Done I moved Rodriguez's pic to the top. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely hate having RR's pic at the top. He is the worst and most despised coach in the program's history. It makes me flinch to open the page and see that creepy smirk, spray-tanned face, and feaux hipster tweed sport jacket over black t-shirt. I much preferred having his face hidden down at the bottom of the article. (so much for concealing my feelings on the RichRod controversy) In the context of a list of Michigan football coaches, Yost, Schembechler and Crisler are at the top of the pyramid, and I'm inclined to have one of them be the lead image. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in here. Tell us how you really feel about Rodriguez! Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I couldn't take it any longer. I've restored Fielding H. Yost's image to its rightful spot atop the article. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the article needs to be in those three Michigan Wolverines categories, just the most specific which would be the head football coaches one.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps!»NMajdan·talk 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)