Talk:2011 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Axl (talk · contribs) 20:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about American football. However this article has been languishing at GAN for over four months. It is about time someone reviewed it, so I shall do so. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While it may be obvious to North American readers that this team plays American football, it may be less obvious to outsiders. How about changing the first sentence to: "The 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team was an American football team that represented the University of Michigan during the 2011 NCAA Division I FBS football season." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section: "Highlights of Michigan's 2011 season included a 35–31 victory over Notre Dame in the first night game ever played at Michigan Stadium, a 45–17 victory over Nebraska in the Cornhuskers' first year in the Big Ten, and the first victory over rival Ohio State since 2003." Is there a reliable source that describes these wins as "highlights"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger added sources for 2 the wins; but should this wording be changed to make it less NPOV? "High points" instead of "highlights" maybe? TomCat4680 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Notre Dame match is now appropriately referenced. I'm not convinced that the Ohio State reference really justifies the description "highlight"; also, the reference doesn't mention that this was the first win since 2003. ("Highlight" or "high point", I don't really mind, as long as the references support the statement.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a better ref for the Ohio State, but as someone who was at that game and witnessed a pitch invasion in celebration, trust me, it deserves to be up there. SCS100 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I added a ref for the Nebraska game. SCS100 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohio State is Michigan's arch-rival, they play every single year, and it was the first time Michigan beat them since 2003, so I think calling that victory a "highlight" is clearly appropriate. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Preseason", paragraph 1: "In 2010, the Wolverines became bowl eligible." What does "bowl eligible" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've linked the bowl game article, as explaining what bowl eligible means would take up too much space in the section. Let me know if this suffices. SCS100 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand what that means now. Did they achieve this by joining the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who is in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) is eligible for a bowl game with six wins. Michigan, along with most major universities, has been in the FBS for as long as it has existed. Basically, it's college football's form of a postseason. SCS100 (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an article on "Bowl eligibility". Would that be a better wikilink? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. SCS100 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As an introductory sentence to the "Preseason" section, it is worth mentioning that the Michigan Wolverines team has represented the University of Michigan for <x> years. (The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the remainder of the article.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, although I put it as the last sentence of the first paragraph to flow better. SCS100 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Preseason", paragraph 1: "In 2010, the Wolverines ... faced the Mississippi State Bulldogs in the Gator Bowl, which they lost 52–14." Did the Wolverines or the Mississippi State Bulldogs lose? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Preseason", paragraph 1: "The Wolverines had an excellent season offensively, with QB Denard Robinson setting several individual records." I presume that "QB" means quarterback? It is worth spelling this out in full, at least the first time that it is used, along with a wikilink. The same applies to similar abbreviations used later on: OG, TE, etc. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, "OG" doesn't seem to be on the Position Key list. I refer to this sentence from "Preseason", paragraph 2: "On August 22, incoming OG Tony Posada announced that he was leaving the program due to unspecified reasons." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was there, it was just listed as "Guard" and as "G" instead of "OG." I have changed this to better reflect the article. SCS100 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Stylistically, I disagree with spelling out the terms, as it adds unneeded text to the article. If you check the previous two seasons (both of which are GA's), you will notice that these are not spelled out. I will, however, link the terms, as I meant to do that earlier and somehow forgot. Let me know if this is ok. SCS100 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have invited WikiProject College Football to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Axl and have removed the abbreviations from many sections of the article. I've not yet touched the games summaries which need the most work. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have a consensus view from WikiProject College Football. Thank you for helping, Cbl62. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Preseason", paragraph 1: "it was believed that Hoke would run a pro-style offense." What is a "pro-style offense"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Provided a link to the page, which will explain it for you. SCS100 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Preseason", paragraph 2: "Michigan returned seventeen out of twenty-two starters." What does that mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Added another link, which should explain this. SCS100 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What does "returned" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It means returned to the team. I added "to the team" right before the emdash. SCS100 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "retained ... in the team"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Returned" is the common American vernacular for sports, so I'd prefer to leave it as that. Is that ok? SCS100 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Recruiting", subsection "Recruits", what do "Scout", "Rivals" and "ESPN grade" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

These are grades that the three recruiting services listed above use to grade the potential of a recruit, with the higher grade meaning better a better recruit. SCS100 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it might also help to explain that I am the other main writer of the article and will be making changes as well. SCS100 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My 99 edits to this page rank me third behind SCS100's 418 and TomCat4680's 174. I just fixed two citation needed templates and will help out as I am able.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed the only dead ref (for my 100th edit to the page).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realize I was #2. Must be all the small edits I make, like typo fixes. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The table would benefit from a heading explaining this. Perhaps "Recruits to 2011 Michigan Wolverines with rankings by Scout.com, Rivals.com and ESPN". Also, what is the "40" column? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the header. Also, added an explanation to the 40 column, which somehow was deleted from the table earlier. SCS100 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Something else I just noticed, half of the game summaries don't have "scoring summary" drop-down boxes. I added expand section tags to them. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone else has been doing those to a bunch of random season articles. If he hasn't done them by the time this GA review is complete, I'll take care of it. SCS100 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too. Not sure why he only does it for half of the games. I asked him (Comedian1018) to come help with the GA work but he hasn't responded. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The table in "Rankings" doesn't indicate how many teams are involved. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the standard rankings table for most college football articles. It's out of 25, but there's a link in the schedule that will show full rankings. SCS100 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth including in the table that there are 25 teams. Also, the table requires a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. SCS100 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In "Schedule", I presume that the last entry, "January 3", was in 2012? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:CFB outcome, years are not used in the schedule table. SCS100 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that in the style guide. Can you point it out please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Found here. SCS100 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That should be added to the style guide. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In "Game notes", subsection "vs. Western Michigan", the word "Michigan" seems to be used as short for "Michigan Wolverines". How about changing this to "Michigan Wolverines" or just "Wolverines" to reduce confusion? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything Western involved should say Western Michigan, or just Western. As the rest of the subsections use Michigan, I'd prefer to leave it. I can change it, however, if necessary. SCS100 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In "Game notes", subsection "vs. Notre Dame", paragraph 1: "In the first night game in Michigan Stadium history, both teams wore "throwback-style" jerseys." Does this mean "retro style"? If so, perhaps add a wikilink? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. SCS100 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The game summaries still need a good deal of work. Many of them also have "This section requires expansion" templates. These issues should be resolved before the article is considered a Good Article. I've spent a good deal of time addressing some of these issues tonight and will try to chip in further as time permits over the next several days. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The "section expansion" tags were discussed above. We're waiting to see if the person who has been adding scoring summaries will add the rest of them before one of us does it. Those are just there to remind us which section needs the summary. SCS100 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I added those tags because they don't have the drop-down "scoring summary" boxes like the others. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but a number of the game summaries are still in pretty rough shape. I see you've been plugging away, but I think they still have a ways to go. Cbl62 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You won't hear me arguing about those. I was just letting you know about the expansion tags. SCS100 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood and appreciated. By the way, it's a lot quicker to just change/fix things rather than to discuss beforehand. I'm doing what I think is best to whip the article into shape, but you two have put a lot of work into this article, so please let me know if you disagree with any of my changes. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

By all means, change whatever you think is necessary. I'm keeping track of what you're doing, and the only thing I've nixed so far is a change that led to a grammatical error (which I fixed). Otherwise, I fully agree with whatever you've done. I appreciate the help. A couple of these were written immediately after I returned from the stadium and could barely think straight. Guess I should have waited, huh? SCS100 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say the game summaries for WMU, EMU, SDSU, and Illinois are good. Help on the others is welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing strikes me about the game summaries. Nowhere in the text do they say who won the game or what the score was. That's the most basic information for a game summary. Shouldn't that be right up front in the body of each game summary??? Cbl62 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The scores are already shown in both the schedule and twice the game boxes. Seems redundant to keep listing them over and over. The summaries are just to show who scored, when and how, in simple narrative. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree. IMO the game score is the single most important fact about a game and is an essential part of any game summary. Information contained in infoboxes should never be used to replace essential text. The better season articles that I've seen do include this information in the summaries. See, e.g., 2011 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Added. SCS100 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's coming back, SCS100. I'm just going to do it myself. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll work on the summaries themselves with cbl62. SCS100 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Scoring summaries are done. I think they're all correct, but can one of you please look through them to make sure I didn't make any mistakes? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked over them. They're fine. SCS100 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Notre Dame", paragraph 1: "A 1991 consensus All-American, Howard became the first receiver in history to lead the Big Ten Conference in scoring." What is "a 1991 consensus All-American"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have linked this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Notre Dame", last paragraph: "Michigan's 17-point comeback against Notre Dame tied for the third-biggest comeback in U-M history." What is "U-M"? "University of Michigan"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is. Meant to fix that earlier. Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Team 132 in WP:LEAD? That belongs in there like 44 belongs in the first sentence at Barack Obama, IMO. Anyone else agree?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the Obama analogy. Are you suggesting that the "Team 132" reference does or does not belong in the lead? Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I get from where Tony's coming, but I disagree. The team was referred to as Team 132 numerous times, and I would bet that that's something that will continue with future teams (it already has with Team 134 and the recruits for it). It's been used enough that it should be noted. No one calls Obama 44 so it isn't needed, but people did call this one Team 132, so it should be in there. SCS100 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Notre Dame", last paragraph: "He [Denard Robinson] ... was nominated for the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week, which he won by fan vote." Why not just say that he won the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why even say that he was nominated for it? Just say that he won it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Eastern Michigan", last paragraph: "Denard Robinson rushed for 198 yards rushing." There seems to be redundancy here. (I don't actually know what "rushing" means in this context.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Eastern Michigan", last paragraph: "the third highest single game total to that point in his college career." Is that really relevant? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. SCS100 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Eastern Michigan", last paragraph: "However, the Associated Press described Robinson's 7-for-18 passing with an interception." What is "7-for-18 passing"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Completions out of attempts. Not really sure how I would explain that in the article though. SCS100 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording to address the concern. Cbl62 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. San Diego State", last paragraph: "Robinson passed Illinois' Isiah Williams (2,557, 2006–09) to move into the second spot among the Big Ten Conference's career leaders in rushing yards by a quarterback." I don't think that Isiah Williams' statistics are relevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I've removed. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Minnesota", last paragraph: "Michigan outgained Minnesota 580 to 177." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Gained more yards than. SCS100 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "at Northwestern", last paragraph: "Michigan's 541 yard offensive performance was the second straight week the offense gained more than yards of offense." What does this mean? Should it be "more than 500 yards"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In "Game notes", subsection "at Northwestern", last paragraph, there are three sentences describing Michigan's dominance in the latter part of the game, with the scores for each variation. Is this really necessary? Why are the sentences split up around another sentence ("Jordan Kovacs had scored two solo tackles for a loss, both on fourth down.")? While Michigan's dominance is being emphasized, why is there no mention of its weakness during the first quarter? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessary at all. Deleted. SCS100 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "at Northwestern", last paragraph: "Jordan Kovacs had scored two solo tackles for a loss, both on fourth down." What does "two solo tackles for a loss" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Linked. SCS100 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Did Kovacs make the tackles (as opposed to being tackled)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clear in the WP:RS (last time I looked) that he made solo tackles for a loss on Defense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference states that Kovacs had a sack and a TFL. The wikilink states "A sack does not count as a tackle for loss." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the erroneous unsourced nonsense that a sack does not count for a TFL. It does, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted that change in this article. See Kovacs stats that include 2 solo TFLs straight from the NCAA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "at Michigan State", paragraph 1: "The Wolverines wore legacy road uniforms." What are "legacy road uniforms"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The road version of the Notre Dame uniforms. I've clarified this. SCS100 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "at Michigan State", paragraph 3: "Michigan's record against Michigan State in the overall series dropped to 68–35–2." Does this mean the number of wins–losses–draws? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. SCS100 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "at Iowa", paragraph 2: "however, the extra point was botched due to a bad snap." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Linked. SCS100 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In "Game notes", in the game summaries from "vs. San Diego state" onwards, some of the teams have a number associated with them. Is this a ranking? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean in the infoboxes for the games. Yes, these are rankings. SCS100 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication in the infoboxes that this number indicates the ranking. Also, the "Rankings" section has four different values for ranking at any given time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Each ranking is the one provided in the source. Also, if you look at other good articles such as this one, you will see that each article has the exact same format. Whatever the ranking the source uses is the one that is listed in the infobox. SCS100 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "at Illinois", paragraph 3: "Defensive end Ryan Van Bergen, who recorded 2.5 sacks, three tackles for loss and seven tackles overall, was named the Big Ten's Co-Defensive Player of the Week." The reference does indeed say that he made 2.5 sacks, but how do you make "half a sack" during a game? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If two people make a sack at the same time, it is recorded as half a sack. So if Mike Martin and Ryan Van Bergen both sacked a quarterback at the same time, it would be recorded as .5 sacks for each. SCS100 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Nebraska", paragraph 1: "In the penultimate game of the 2011 season, Michigan hosted the Nebraska Cornhuskers." However there were two more games after Nebraska. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. Should have been regular season, not including the bowl game. SCS100 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Nebraska", paragraph 1: "In celebration of Military Appreciation Day, Michigan held a card stunt." What is a "card stunt"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Linked. SCS100 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Ohio State", paragraph 1: "Ohio State won the 2010 game 37–7, but later vacated the win." What does "vacated" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It means to strike from record (give up the victory). It's a common college football term, so I would prefer to not remove it from the article. Does this help? SCS100 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Ohio State", paragraph 1: "This was the first time the schools met with new head coaches since 1929." This seems to imply that the schools had the same head coaches since 1929. I don't know what it is supposed to be saying. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. SCS100 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the meaning. However I don't really see the relevance of both teams having new head coaches. Also, why are the 1929 head coaches named? Perhaps just delete the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's relavent because this was the first time in 83 years this had happened. Also, the television broadcast mentioned this at least two or three times during the game. SCS100 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Ohio State", paragraph 2: "the Buckeyes took a 17–16 lead when Braxton Miller ran 19 yards for a touchdown." The name "Buckeyes" wasn't mentioned earlier in the text. (It was implied in the "see also" note.) Either mention the name "Buckeyes" earlier in the text, or change it to "Ohio State". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Ohio State", paragraph 3: "The victory was Michigan's first victory over Ohio State since 2003." That was already mentioned in paragraph 2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Virginia Tech", paragraph 2: "In the first quarter, Virginia Tech's third-string K Justin Myer kicked a 37-yard field goal." Should this be "third-string kicker Justin Myer" or "third-string kicker K Justin Myer"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kicker. Fixed. SCS100 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Game notes", subsection "vs. Virginia Tech", last paragraph: "Jake Ryan had 4 tackles for a loss." The rest of the paragraph is a summary of the significance of the game itself. The last sentence is a disconnect. Perhaps move the sentence to paragraph 2? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 is a summary of the game itself, so I would prefer to leave stats and such in the third paragraph. Also, if you look at the other game notes sections, all of these type of stats are in the third paragraph, so I'd prefer to keep it uniform. I might dig up some other stats later to make it fit better. SCS100 (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 is a summary of the significance of the game as a whole. Jake Ryan's "4 tackles for a loss" doesn't have any place there. The reference consists of a list of numbers/statistics. While Ryan made four out of the eight tackles for a loss, this number is not explicitly called out as noteworthy. The sentence should be deleted from this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. SCS100 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Awards and honors", paragraph 1: "Molk also received the inaugural Rimington-Pace Big Ten Offensive Lineman of the Year award." I think that the hyphen should be an en dash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

From "Awards and honors", paragraph 2: "Brady Hoke won the Hayes-Schembechler Coach of the Year." I suspect that this hyphen should be an en dash, too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Official press release via the Big Ten website has both of these as a hyphen. SCS100 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for further input here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed per outcome. SCS100 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the first table in the "Statistics" section to be a little confusing. What are the numbers in the "Actual" columns? I guess that many of them are yards, while others are not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no good way to clarify that table to what you want. Most of the numbers are implied by their subsection—turnovers obviously equal turnovers, sacks equal sacks—while scoring implies points. Maybe someone else can figure out how to make it better, but we've had the table in the last two seasons, both of which are GA's, and no one seems to have had a problem with them. SCS100 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From "2012 NFL Draft": "Prior to the draft, the Houston Texans informed Ryan Van Bergen that they were targeting him with their sixth round pick, but the team drafted two defensive linemen in earlier rounds (Whitney Mercilus and Jared Crick)." Why is the conjunction "but" used here? Did the Houston Texans subsequently not pick Ryan Van Bergen because they had already picked Mercilus & Crick? I see that Van Bergen was later signed by the Carolina Panthers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Houston no loner needed Van Bergan, as they had already drafted players at his position; therefore, the conjunction "but" is correct. SCS100 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "Prior to the draft, the Houston Texans informed Ryan Van Bergen that they were targeting him with their sixth round pick. However the team drafted two defensive linemen in earlier rounds (Whitney Mercilus and Jared Crick) and did not pick Van Bergen; he was subsequently signed with the Carolina Panthers, minutes after the draft ended on April 28." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good idea. SCS100 (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Okay, I have read the whole article and posted my comments. My thanks to SCS100, Cbl62, TonyTheTiger and TomCat4680 for acting on my comments, especially SCS100 who has patiently considered every criticism.

As I am not familiar with American football, many statements in the article remain somewhat obscure to me. However I accept that a full explanation would be beyond the scope of this article. Moreover the majority of readers coming to this article would already be familiar with the sport. The article also contains some Americanisms. Some aspects of content and formatting already have a precedent in other college football team good articles. (It would be helpful to add these precedents to the style guide.)

1. The article is well-written. Although some aspects require knowledge of the sport, this is acceptable for the article's topic.
2. The article is accurate. Good quality sources are provided throughout.
3. The whole topic is covered.
4. The article is neutral.
5. There is no content dispute or edit war.
6. Appropriate free-use pictures are used, hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

The article meets GA standard. My thanks and congratulations to all editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)