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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: This article needs a lot of work to pass. It is too much like a piece of advertising. The main problems are with prose. It is very disjointed and reads like several trivia facts joined together. There are very choppy sentences and short paragraphs which desperately need expanding. The result is that we are told very little about this man's career. Until I read the article, I had never heard of the man (I'm not from the US), but I don't feel I'm much wiser.

We are told nothing about his early life, university life, sports career or how his broadcasting career developed. This is not really broad and accurate coverage; the article needs far more facts and details.

There is also too much trivia about irrelevant things: his family, his wife and the "Michigan Replay" programme. It seems the article has been cobbled together from very meagre sources. It needs a detailed, reliable source such as a biography or autobiography to flesh out some details.

Lead

• "...currently the radio color commentator": Currently is too vague. If you want to say that he is doing it at the moment, it should give a date (i.e. as of March 2010). Or you could simply say when he started the job.
• Four consecutive sentences start with "he".
• The lead does not usually need references.

Childhood and family

• Date and place of birth?
• Is his father's later career relevant?
  • In general, if known, parents names and occupations should be included to improve the breadth and depth of an article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Despite all of this, Brandstatter opted to attend the University of Michigan..." Despite all what? If it refers to his family's achievements, it needs stating explicitly.
• A very long quote which doesn't tell the reader anything about his university career.
• The section says very little about his childhood or early life.
• The section end with two one sentence paragraphs about his nephew and brothers. It reads like trivia.
• Who are the Spartans football team? While it is wikilinked, it would be good to have sentence explaining it in the article.

Sports career

• "...legendary Michigan coach Bo Schembechler's..." Who says he is legendary?
• Three quarters of this section is about one game. This is too much. What about the rest of his sports career? It is made up of too many quotes.
• Can you describe how good he was? Why was he good? What did he achieve? How often did he play?
• What position did he play. Ref 2 does not give the same position as this article.
• What is the all big ten team? Again, wikilinked but a sentence would be helpful.
• Rose Bowl? Ditto.

Broadcasting career

• First paragraph is very short and made up of two choppy sentences. It also reads like trivia.

Television

• The first paragraph is just a list of acronymns and does not make easy reading.
• Second paragraph seems like a promo piece for Michigan replay

Radio

• Again reads like an advert or promotional piece.

Author

• Very very short. What are the books about? When were they written?

Personal life

• Again it reads like it is a promotional feature or a magazine trivia article.
• Is "knicknamed" a spelling mistake?

References

• These seem overreliant on a couple of sources which are not all that strong such as the DSBA member roster. A stronger biography is needed.
• Ref 9 required subscription to access and Ref 10 refers to a page which does not exist anymore.

There are a few other issues, but I think this is enough for now. I am putting the article on hold for a week, but I can't see it passing in a hurry unless more information is found. As a lot needs doing, I am happy to give it longer if required. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by nominatior

Lead

1. Its later explained that he's done it since 1987 and is still active so I used currently so I don't have to go back every month and update it.

Yes, but the person reading it doesn't know that. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Changed

3. I removed the ref in the lead since it only mentions his name in passing.

Childhood and family

1. His place of birth is mentioned in the lead.

The lead should not mention anything that is not in the main article. Surely it should be mentioned here as well? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I re-phrased it to show he was both born and raised in East Lansing

2. Parents careers are usually mentioned in BLP's

OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Despite the fact that Michigan State is Michigan's second biggest rival. That's why "in-state rival" is linked to Paul Bunyan Trophy, the rivalry trophy the teams play for annually. This also answers "who are the Spartans?" question.

Someone reading this would not want to check every link. A simple sentence would do the job. Also, "Despite all of this" is much too vague. Explain it in the article that they are rivals. I do not think it is clear. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it as asked.

4. His University career is discussed in the next section.

5. His childhood is discussed. It talks about how he loved watching his brother play at Michigan State and was recruited by Michigan in high school.

Yes, but you give no other detail about his childhood. Is this all that happened to him? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but you'd have to talk to him yourself for more of these kinds of stories, I don't know him personally. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports career

1. Its well known that Bo Schembechler is arguably one of the greatest college football coaches of all times. Read his article for more details.

Well, I didn't know. Again, a sentence is all that is required so that the reader is not chasing links. And you need a source to say he was legendary, it cannot be your opinion. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added that Schembechler is Michigan's winningest coach. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. It was a memorable game for him. Also its hard to find sources about someone who played in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

You cannot have his entire sports career represented by one game. If there are no other details about him (and I'm sure there must be) this is not going to be a broad enough article for GA. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Big Ten is one of the college premier conferences in the US and he was chosen as one of the best players in his conferences. (read its article for further details

Again, the reader should not be chasing details. A sentence in the article should give this information like you did here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that its one of the top conferences as asked. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Rose Bowl is the game the team goes to when they have the best record in their conference in that season (read its article for further details].

See (3). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I breifly explained what the Rose Bowl is. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting career

1. I removed one of the sentences which is already in lead and addded more about his past experience.

Television

1. They're not acronymns, they television stations. In the US television stations use 3 or 4 letter callsigns that start with W or K.

The non US reader will not know this. Also, it does not make the prose flow very well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted they're all television stations. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't see how its a promo piece, it tells what the show is and who's been the stars of it.

Still the same problems. It is not clear from the article whether the information about Michigan replay is about his time there or after he left, if he is still there or something else. If I have misunderstood all this, I apologise, but the article does not make any of this clear. It needs a clear chronology of his achievements. -Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandstatter has been the original host of the show since 1980. The coaches are the co-hosts. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio

1. I don't see how its a promo piece, its tells about his career in radio and his current positions which he's perhaps most known for.

Now there are even more short paragraphs. If this is a biography, it should state that first he did X then went on to do Y. The television section just about does this but the rest is just a list of his achievements without any chronology or comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and merged the paragraphs. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author

1. I haven't read the books but they're about his experiences as a college football player. The publication dates are included in the bibliography.

So there is information about his college career? The publication dates need to be part of the article as well as in the bibliography. This article may be a lot better if information from these books was included. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find them in a store in person. I could order them online but it would take much longer than a week for them to arrive, and for me to read them - they're over 200 pages. He's most known for being a broadcaster for almost 40 years anyway and that's what I wanted to focus the article on more so - his achievements in that field. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

1. That just doesn't make any sense. It tells about his wife and what they do on their free time.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. In which case, an encyclopedia would not include information about a person's hobbies. If you want information about his wife, then here are some starting questions. When did they meet? Where? When were they married?

--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added when and where they met and removed their hobbies. Sorry but I don't know his wedding anniversary and its mostly likely not available publicly. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. My mistake, its nickname.

References

1. His DBSA page tells about his entire career.

Yes, but is it detailed enough to support this entire article? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so. So is the Michigan Association of Broadcasters link that I added yesterday. Both have his entire broadcasting resume.

2. I removed the other links in question

Please re-review. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues listed above have not really been addressed. I am simply using this, this and this in deciding what a good article should be like. It is not just my opinion. As it stands, I am inclined to fail the article. I will keep it on hold for the rest of the week. However, if you do not feel that the changes need to be made, I cannot see a way forward. But if you put the article up for review, you must be prepared to address a reviewers concerns, not just to brush them aside. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an awards an honors section with new references and further information about his broadcasting career and his free-lance company. Thank you for your re-consideration. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is making the progress it needs to do. There are still issues with the article being broad in coverage. I think it is lacking detail. There is also the issue of sources and the shortness of the paragraphs. I also think that parts of the prose need work, as it does not read like an encyclopedia at the moment. I think that many of the concerns that I outlined above are still valid. The article has improved with the addressing of some points, but we are still left with brief sections of one or two sentences and no detail. The nominator has recognised this and added some cleanup tags to the article. However, an article with multiple issues will not pass GA at the moment until they are resolved. As a result, I'm afraid I'll have to fail it now. However, I would be happy to review it again once it has been improved.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]