Wikipedia:Peer review/List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches/archive1

List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to Featured List status and I wanted some input before I put it up for review there. Thanks, Remember (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I have a few suggestions, mainly about prose, style and layout.

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

Image license

• The Cartmell image licensing page at the Commons does not have enough information to allow fact-checkers to be sure that the image is properly licensed. The link to the University of Pennsylvania archives leads to an "entry denied" message. This problem is probably fixable.

Lead

• "The North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball program is a college basketball team... " - A "program" is not exactly a "team". I'd look for a way to re-state this. Doesn't the program include the coaching staff, the basketball arena, the trainers, and a lot of other things in addition to the team?
• The opening paragraph repeats "North Carolina" too many times. It shouldn't be hard to vary this a bit.
• Atlantic Coast Conference should not be linked twice in the opening paragraph. How about using unlinked "ACC" on the second reference?
• "During those seasons, three coaches have lead the team to... " - "have led" rather than "have lead"
• "Smith is the only coach to lead North Carolina to an NIT championship... " - NIT should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use.
• "Smith has had the longest tenure at North Carolina" - "had" rather than "has had"?

*"to have won a Olympic Gold Medal for coaching basketball" - "an" rather than "a"?

Key

• The layout here is very strange. Why all the white space? Also, the "Other awards" box extends beyond the edge of the page on my computer screen. Could this whole section be re-organized somehow?

See revised key

References

• The abbreviation for a single page is p., but for multiple pages it's pp.
• Some of the citations lack the date of most recent access.
• Some names, like "Southern Conference" in citation 1, are in italics when they shouldn't be. Journals and newspaper names should appear in italics but not universities, conferences, or other publishers.
• The publisher of the Wall Street Journal entry in citation 8 appears to be Dow Jones & Company.
• The publisher of citation 16 appears to be CBS Interactive. The author is Bill Free. I'm not sure what "Umterps.cstv.com" refers to.
• The wikilink in citation 3 appears to be circular. Ditto for citation 4. Ditto for citation 12. There may be others like this that are self-referential.
• In general, I'd suggest checking everything in the references section for formatting errors and to make sure all the refs are complete. My rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of last access, if all of these are known.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comments. I will get too as soon as I get a chance. Remember (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of some of my revisions. Remember (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The text is looking better. I changed a hyphen to an en dash and a few more things of that sort on a read-through this morning, but a few similar things remain to be done to some of the other citations (as noted above). However, the layout is still less than ideal. There is no single right way to lay out a page, but it's often helpful to try out several possibilities before settling on any particular one. For example, you might try re-organizing your two explanatory tables along the lines of the explanatory table at the top of the "Statistics" section of the List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. If you merged your two explanatory tables and made the columns just the right width, you'd probably be able to place the two images (Cartmell and Smith) to the right of the new table. This (if it actually works) would solve the white-space problem and make the page more visually appealing. I don't know for sure that it will work, but it, or something similar, is something you might try. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was easier to move the images than to try to explain what I had in mind. Wikipedia articles don't include photo credits; they belong on the image licensing page. By removing the photo credit, I made room for Dean Smith to fit under Roy Williams without overlapping two sections. Cantrell fit nicely in the space to the right of the key. I changed the head from "List" to "Statistics" to avoid repeating a main work of the article title, and I slightly revised the two subheads. If you don't like these changes, please revert them. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I moved the images around because the layout did not work on a larger monitor like mine but it may not solve the problems on smaller monitors. I may just have to keep playing with it.

If there are no further suggested revisions, could someone please close this peer review? Remember (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)