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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC) First off, I always get cranky when the WP:LEAD does not summarize the article. This one is a prime example of such a case. As a Michigan fan, I am interested in this article because Michigan opens with Alabama next year. I feel this article is quite rushed. It is missing numerous features that the 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team has. Here are a few:[reply]

• The lead should help me understand who the standout performers were and what the team's superlatives were.
  • Surely Bama had some consensus All-Americans.
  • You might have had some national award winners.
  • You might have had some national statistical champions or conference statistical champions.
• Later in the article several other important things are missing.
• No mention of 2012 Senior Bowl or 2012 East–West Shrine Game invitees.
• I can't tell who they had to replace from the prior year draft or even how the prior year ended. How many starters were lost? Who?
• I'd suggest using the NCAA.org stat summary that Michigan uses as well
• Where are the recruits.

The Michigan article is not even the best to go by. I would look around at a bunch of other season articles paying close attention to WP:FA and WP:GA before nominating this article.

I apologize for quickfailing this due to lack of breadth. It was just rushed. Take your time and include all the relevant features.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why this was failed so quickly without being able to respond. Yes the lead can be worked on a bit. All of what you suggest is included and cited in the body of the article. I have it modeled after my previous two Alabama GA season articles, and I have no problem including some of what you would like to see in there.

As for the "missing" items:

• The 2011 recruits are listed in their totality. The table is just in a collapsed state.
• Yes, the postseason all-star games are not there as of yet, but will be included one they have been played. I will concede that maybe I did rush this here.
• Starters from the previous year lost can be found in the summary leading into the returning starters section.
• A paragraph explaining what happened in the 2010 season can be found in the before the season section.
• I did include team stats from the NCAA source you utilized in the Michigan article in a prose section in a "final statistics" section. My preference is for prose as opposed to a chart, but it is just a preference. As for individual statistics, I did not include them as I feel they are more appropriate for individual player articles, but again this was not discussed in in quick fail here.

I may have rushed this article after only three days after the completion of the season. However, this has been an on-going effort since the spring and I feel your concerns could have been addressed in the standard GA review, and if I did not think it was ready, I would not have nominated it in the first place. I will bring this back in the near future. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my personal standards, the 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team articles are also both fairly underdeveloped as compared to the 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2010 Michigan Wolverines football team in some senses.

• 2009 Tide: missing national, conference and school records, and national and conference statistical leaderships in the LEAD. Should beef up article statistics with NCAA.org summary. Note that we (Michigan editors) have copied NCAA tables because they are not subjective and thus not original work. Why doesn't this have a conference navbox? SEC is curiously missing at Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season conference navboxes. Again 2009 Bama is hiding recruits, while 2009 Michigan is not. Is there an argument for hiding? Below see that they are hidden at 2005 USC Trojans football team and unhidden at 2007 USC Trojans football team. I'd go with unhidden, personally. Follow the FA.
• 2010 Tide: Again with hiding and unhiding, I'd go with unhiding. LEAD missing national, conference and school records, national and major conference honors and national and conference statistical leaderships in the LEAD. Again, should beef up statistics with NCAA.org summary, IMO.

However, general modern standards (2005–present) are not clear. The GA lot is fairly inconsistent. I see the hidden recruits at 2005 USC Trojans football team and unhidden at 2007 USC Trojans football team, but 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team, 2007 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Maryland Terrapins football team missing content as is 2005 Texas Longhorns football team. I feel that although standards are not clear, it is becoming common to include recruit boxes unhidden and the FA standard uses it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'd mention All-Star game invitations now and update participation after the game. Note that we summarize what we see in WP:RS. If the press has mentioned invitations, we should mention them. When details can be updated with participation based on press reports do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also quite disappointed that the infobox does not have the team MVP (same for 2009 and 2010). I think I stand by my QF. I will be spending time with these FAs and GAs trying to make them all more homogeneous. You are free to bring this up at WP:GAR. Before the season section should have drafted players and camp signees this will be a different list than the starters and key performers lost list (some of whom might not get camp invites).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to add some more statistics to both of the articles you mentioned as I do agree that overall team stats are appropriate for a team article. I do also agree the LEAD needs to be expanded upon, but based on this conversation, I believe there needs to be guidelines developed through some sort of consensus at WP:CFB.

• Personally I feel the recruits list should be hidden. With a paragraph stating the class ranking an significant recruits, I personally think the expanded list is too much. If readers want to see the entire listing, the information is there. However if they just want a synopsis of the recruits, without scrolling through the list that is available too. Ultimately I will agree to consensus on this though.
• Regarding the tables, in my eyes I do not see the purpose for them in an individual season article. If Alabama has a passing offense ranked 43rd in the nation, why does the reader need to know that Houston has the 1st ranked passing offense? For individual players, again I do not see the purpose of having a table showing that McCarron ranked 38th in total passing yardage and that Case Keenum is first overall. Again, I feel that type of information is appropriate for an individual player article, not for that of the team. I will agree that if a player is the national leader or even a conference leader in a particular category, then that may be appropriate for inclusion in the team article. Generally speaking, I think the information would be great in a stand alone article that could be reference back though for annual statistical leaders, but I feel Wikipedia:NOTSTATS may come into play here if we get mired into too many stats.
• Regarding team MVP, yes Alabama does have an award to that effect. However in the realm of Alabama football the most important recognition bestowed on a player is that of permanent captain which is included in the infobox. For these types of things there should be flexibility IMO, but if the consensus is to include it regardless of overall relevance to the individual program I am happy to follow.
• I do not understand the relevance of drafted players and camp signees from the previous season included in the before the season section. Those players are tied to the previous season and noting that Mark Ingram was drafted an plays for the Saints or that Julio Jones plays for the Falcons bears no relevance on the 2011 Alabama season. Simply noting they are no longer starters should be sufficient IMO.
• I also do not see how lacking a SEC navbox is an issue at all. I am moving into the camp of less is better with regards to these navboxes as their information is already available in both the standings template and the overall schedule. Do we really need another navbox that essentially replicates what is already available?

Again, I do not think we are that far apart, but there are definitely some issues here left better addressed by the community as a whole. Ultimately, I just want the best I can make for Alabama articles just as you do for Michigan. Roll Tide. Patriarca12 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]