Talk:University of Michigan basketball scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleUniversity of Michigan basketball scandal has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lemay1098. Peer reviewers: Noahharr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older talk page posts[edit]

I am sorry but all this talk about Ed Martin being a booster is a lie. My Uncle who has contacts through the boosters said no linkage exists between Martin and the U of M boosters. What I would like to see some evidence outside of Newspapers that show Martin was in effect a booster. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper reference is a good enough reference for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to be determining the "booster" status of Ed Martin. The article should just be stating published information. See WP:OR. X96lee15 17:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I did dig through the Mlive link provided from the article. Only one newspaper said he was booster. The ann arbor and detroit presses tend to call him just by his name or as an electrician at the plants. In anycase one paper did state from Jalen Rose who was a member of the Fab 5 that he was not a booster but rather a detroit local that followed the local scene and helped the low income great basketball players out. I think Jalen in the paper said he would give players coats if they needed them. --Mihsfbstadium 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Martin[edit]

It's unusual to have an entire article about this guy, and not have a wikipedia entry for Ed Martin; he deserves at least a stub-class bio before this article goes to "good article" status. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some places to start: NY Times obituary of Ed Martin. where was he born? which auto factory did he work for? who was he before he got involved in this? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Michigan basketball scandal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be happy to review for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Reasonably well–written, article will require more prose polish to move up to FA quality.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Good credible sourcing.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image has been released by copyright holder.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This is a good article, not spectacular, but that's not what we're judging here. Suggestions for improvement have been made and many of the suggestions have already been implemented. Recommend pass for GA. H1nkles (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GAR Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Lead"[edit]

  • There are a couple of spelling errors, I'll fix those myself.
  • The lead it quite detailed, per WP:LEAD it is considered a summary of the article. I would reduce it to three paragraphs and take out most of the penalty wording. You cover it in the necessary detail in the body of the article. mentioning the penalties in the lead is enough.
  • I don't think the lead is terribly lengthy given the amount of detail in the article. I merged the last two paragraphs so it is only three paragraphs. I would still like the reader who only reads to the lead to know the result of the penalty.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to want to add & ndash; in place of dashes and   in between numbers and units of measure.
  • This sentence is long, gives too much detail and is awkward: "The case began when the investigation of an automobile rollover accident during Mateen Cleaves' 1996 recruiting trip to Michigan revealed a curious relationship between Martin and the Wolverine basketball program dating back to the 1980s." Consider taking out "rollover" (unnecessary) and moving all the details about who it was and the recruiting trip to the body of the article. What's left would be the following: "The case began when the investigation of an automobile accident involving a Michigan recruit, revealed a curious relationship between Martin and the Wolverine basketball program dating back to the 1980s."
  • I left in Cleaves, but removed most of the rest. I want the LEAD to be a standalone article and would want anyone only reading the lead to know it was Cleaves.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "several" twice in the sentence about the grand jury, consider rewording to avoid redundancy. H1nkles (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Background"[edit]

  • In discussing the people in the Ford Explorer you list Traylor, Taylor, Cleaves, et al. Usually "et al" is used to refer to people already mentioned but in the context you do not mention the occupants in the vehicle until 3 sentences later. I recommend adding all the names of the people in the vehicle and then removing the sentence starting with "Willie Mitchell" as it would be redundant.
  • You don't need to wikilink Cleaves' name in this section as it is wikilinked in the Lead.
  • I would clarify at the beginning of this section that accounts of what happened during the night vary depending on who was interviewed. It is important to set from the beginning that the facts on this issue are in dispute.
  • This paragraph, "The NCAA uses a statute of limitations of four years. Thus, at any time the NCAA can open or re-open an investigation for an infraction occurring within the last four years.[7] However, NCAA convention is to date violations based on when they learned about the infraction.[3]" is confusing. What are you trying to communicate? Are you saying that the investigation would be reopened later? Or that the investigation could be reopened at some point? It seems unnecessary or unclear in the context of the section on the background.
  • I would create a section towards the end of the article on what happened to all the various players involved in this scandal, from basketball players, to Martin, to the University. You mention Weber and Martin, but I would take the career information on the basketball players in the roll over accident out of the Background section and add it to a section like your "Fallout" section. To mention what happened to players after the event doesn't really fit in the "Background" section of the article.
  • I think you are asking for a where are they now section. I have not familiar with an encyclopedic version of such, but I will try to accomodate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think such a section would become obsolescent. This is not going to be a highly trafficked page. Each individual is linked. I do not think anything more is necessary. I started adding a section, but would like your approval to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand where you're coming from, it makes sense. My thinking was that it becomes confusing to intersperse some information on what happened to the individuals involved around the article without any real organization. You're right that it would become obsolete. I'm fine with not having a section on that. Can you review the article consider how best to show how the scandal affected individuals involved as well as how it affected the University? You're an experienced article creator and I trust your best judgement in this respect. H1nkles (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement is not supported by your citation, "When the University sought information, it realized that all the vehicles driven by its players were part of a special vehicle registration program.[1]" According to the cite, when the NCAA investigated the leasing documents the University checked other vehicles driven by basketball players. Whatever the results of this investigation, the University established a vehicle registration program. Again, this fact should be in a results section rather than in the Background section.
  • Overall I think this section could be improved. What were the triggers in this accident that led to so many different agencies investigating Michigan? This is a key question. Readers will see that a rollover accident caused one of the biggest scandals in NCAA sports history and they're going to want to know how the "ball of yarn" started to unravel. What were the loose strings (so to speak) that investigators picked up on that spun this whole thing out? That starts here in the background section. You don't have to give all the details here but you should point out what was out of place and give some indication of what investigators picked up on that took this simple traffic accident and made it a huge scandal? H1nkles (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Martin's relationship with the program"[edit]

  • "...and the near occurrence of others" is unnecessary and should be removed. If you want to convey that he was close to other violations but didn't commit any then consider a new sentence. This wording is awkward.
  • Consider explaining again who Fisher is. His description is in the Lead but perhaps just a word that he was the head basketball coach helps readers to keep all the names straight.
  • The prose in this sentence is poor, "Fisher kept Martin from committing bigger violations by disallowing him to put a deposit on an apartment for a player and stopping him from buying airplane tickets for a player's family." Consider rewording like this, "Fisher prevented Martin from committing serious violations by keeping him from placing a deposit on an apartment for a player. He also stopped Martin from buying airplane tickets for another player's family."
  • In the 1980's subheading you wikilink Detroit Southwestern High School. The link leads to Southwestern High School in Detroit. I would only wikilink Southwestern High School and I would remove Detroit as it creates a double possessive issue. In the sentence you're saying Detroit's Southwestern High School's coach, Perry Watson. You could reword the sentence like this if you want to keep Detroit in it, "Martin befriended Coach Perry Watson, basketball coach for Southwestern High School of Detroit. Through his relationship with the high school, Martin was able to provide gifts to the team's players."
  • "When Frieder recruited a Southwestern prospect, Martin was present." Is Southwestern a school? Is it a reference to the geographical location of the prospect (ie from Arizona or New Mexico)? It's confusing. Also this statement should be cited.
  • What is the significance of the fact that he gave gifts and cash to Frieder recruit Terry Mills? This seems like a dangling fact that doesn't have much connection to the rest of the paragraph. If you want to use it then put it in to a sentence of examples of Martin's egregious abuse of NCAA recruiting rules. You have cites for it, which is good, it just appears out of any context that's all.
  • Is there anything else on Webber that can be added? This is a stub paragraph on Webber - who is certainly the highest profile athlete involved in this scandal. More info on the relationship between Martin and Webber here would be great if you're going to make a special subheading just on Webber.
  • I am not sure anything else belongs here. I added one fact. I was not sure what to do since his activities spanned the 80s and 90s.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1990's subheading, "It emerged..." could be weasel wording. Who said it, how was it discovered?
  • You very astutely outline the pattern Martin followed with recruits. Consider explaining the pattern generically after the sentence, "A pattern eventually became clear." Then use the cited information as examples of this pattern. Your bullet points are redundant since you discuss the amounts in the paragraph. The information is important, just consider consolidating it to remove redundant information.
  • Two stub paragraphs at the end of this section, consider expanding, combining or removing them.
  • The more I read the more I think a timeline of events would really be helpful to the reader. You list several months and years that can get convoluted as the article progresses, this is a reality in such a complex investigation. Putting it all down on a timeline would help the reader to better understand how it all played out. H1nkles (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Raids and subpoenas"[edit]

  • This sentence is awkward: "The authorities were investigating both whether the Martins were running a numbers game operation at Ford plants and whether Martin had provide Michigan basketball players with money and gifts.[5]" Remove "both" and "whether", perhaps reword like this, "The authorities were investigating the Martin's alleged numbers game operation at Ford plants and whether Martin had provided Michigan basketball players with money and gifts."
  • Also in this sentence you say the Martins are plural. Were both Mr. and Mrs. suspected of running the numbers game at the Ford plants or was it just Ed? If it was just Ed then it shouldn't be plural.
  • Don't forget about the son Carlton. I think plural is used for the family and singular is used for Ed correctly in the sentence above. Let me know if you would like further changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In May 1999...." sentence in this section is a stand–alone sentence, which ends up being a stub paragraph. It fits well in the paragraph above. Consider transitionary words such as, "As a result of the investigations, the Detroit Free Press reported in May of 1999, that...." This will help with the flow of this section, which is a bit choppy.
  • Albert White comes in out of the blue here. Consider introducing the reader to him. From the context of the rest of the paragraph I gather that he was a former student recruited during this time. It would be good to give people a little bit of this information to the readers at the beginning of the paragraph. Otherwise we have no context in which to put him since he is not mentioned in the article before now.
  • Overall this section is pretty good. As I stated, the sentences need more transitionary work to help the flow of the article.
  • Was Martin's home the only home that was raided? Were there raids or subpoenas of Michigan's records or Frieder's or Fisher's records? I think there could be more information out there but that would be to help move the article on to FA status. For now the level of detail in this section is fine in my opinion for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Federal Indictments"[edit]

  • These two sentences could be condensed into one, "The agreement with the United States Attorney's office was nearly finalized in January 2000.[22] The paperwork for the plea agreement was to be finalized in March 2000 for the former Ford Motor Company employee to plead guilty to one count of federal gambling and one count of income tax evasion.[23][24]" I'm always looking for ways to say things more expeditiously. Consider consolidating the two sentences for flow.
  • In the sentence starting with "If found guilty at trial..." you have the number five written out and then you have the number 250,000 written numerically. Please change five to 5 or write out 250,000 long hand so as to be consistent within the sentence.
  • "Fisher, now the coach at San Diego State University, testified before a federal grand jury investigating Martin.[28]" Is Fisher the coach as SDSU now as in 2008 or was he the coach there when he testified? Should be clarified. I see you did put Fisher as currently at SDSU, that's enough. Same for the next sentence about Perry Watson and coaching at University of Detroit Mercy.
  • I don't understand this sentence, "Furthermore, Martin was banned from associating with the team, making any continuing financial relationship with him in violation of NCAA rules and to be considered a new violation.[33]" The wording just seems awkward.
  • That should be better. The previous construction was ungrammatical because making was modifying team instead of the ban and the ban was in some kind of compound verb form instead of noun form. It should be good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Webber subsection you restate several facts about how much was paid to Webber and the guilty plea from Martin. I think this is duplicative and can either be eliminated or trimmed down.
  • I think that dollar amount belongs in the article in the places it currently is. However, if some of the sections are redundant, maybe the number of repetitions of that total could be removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are tense issues with this sentence, "In December 2002, Webber's father has admitted he accepted gifts and a small loan from Martin, which contradicts earlier statements.[36][34]" Webber's father had admitted.
  • You may want to consider your wikilinking of Federal Grand Jury. You refer to a Federal Grand Jury prior to this section yet do not wikilink it. Why wikilink this one?
  • You already wikilink perjury, you don't nee to do it again.
  • Consider rearranging the Malvo confession and sentencing w/ Martin's death since the death occurs after Malvo's confession. Also because the next paragraph discusses Martin's death, this would help with transition and flow.
  • How did Judge Edmunds rule? You said she would rule in September 2003, this implies that there was an outcome. Do you have the outcome? H1nkles (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Sanctions"[edit]

  • "Initially, the University announced it would forfeit every game played while the four players were eligible.[38]" Why do you put "initially"? Did the University change its mind? Why is this sentence here and not down with the rest of the self–imposed sanctions?
  • Good insight into the difference between forfeiting and vacating a game. Is there a cite to back that up?
  • Odds are that if a subject like that does not have an adjacent citation it pre-existed my involvement in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good section. Comprehensive and well written. H1nkles (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Fallout"[edit]

  • I see where the judge made her rulings regarding Webber's sentencing. I have striken my comments regarding this in the previous section.
  • In several places you capitalize University and in others you don't, the context seems to continue to point to Michigan. I fixed a few of them but there are more in this section so I'll leave that up to you to address.
  • Otherwise this section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Review[edit]

  • Overall the article is well written, neutral in POV, well sourced, and comprehensive.
  • There are no photos. Per WP:WIAGA A GA should (if possible) have at least one image. I'm sure there's an applicable image that could be put here.
  • I don't like any of the images of the players are good for this article. There are no images of the players from their college years and the images are fairly low quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a shot of the University of Michigan or Crisler Arena? What about Ed Martin? I'm certainly not one to have an image just for the sake of having an image but if there's something out there that can add a little to the article then I'm for including it. Even the Michigan Logo would be fine. H1nkles (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be away until 10/10, when I return I'll check progress and then determine status. Good job on this article. H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1990's section you say "A list of Martin's lending is as follows:" but there's nothing after it except the next paragraph. Were you adding more information to this section? H1nkles (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

This article should be entitled Ed Martin scandal, which is the name overwhelmingly used for it. Absolutely no one refers to it by the current title. I don't know if this is an attempt at political correctness or what, but it's just silly. Go with the name that people actually use. 24.11.127.26 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-written but it does in fact plagiarize some sources. It takes direct lines from sources and cites them, but doesn't put them in quotations or identify them as direct quotes. An example of this is the line “He admitted to telling a grand jury in October 1999 that he bet money but did not work for Mr. Martin. He was sentenced in August 2002 to two years' probation,” referring to Clarence Malvo. The exact same sentences appear in the New York Times article that is cited. Also, I think there should be more of a reference to the Fab Five. The Fab Five was a huge part of Michigan basketball history, so to add a bit about that would really increase the reader's understanding of how big of a deal this scandal was.Lemay1098 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Michigan_basketball_scandal&oldid=1210803275"