# Talk:1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team

This review is transcluded from Talk:1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the "Background" section would read more smoothly if you make the subject of the first sentence the 1937–38 team, rather than the 1938–39 team.  It took me a second to realize that the second sentence was jumping back in time.  Leaving it the way it is would require the use of the past perfect tense, which I think would sound awkward.
Suggest combining the first two sentences of "Roster" in order to avoid the repetition of "starting lineup" in such a short span, unless "regular" and "entire" mean different things.
"The players in the lineup were mostly raised in Oregon; 8 of the 11 men on the roster came from the state, while 3 came from Washington": a little repetitive.  How about "Eight of the eleven men on the roster came from Oregon, and the other three from neighbouring Washington"?  (Switching to words instead of numbers to avoid starting a sentence with a number.)
"had all played for Astoria High School": I don't think you need "all".
What's the significance of mentioning Hobson's support of a shot clock?  I don't know much about basketball; was a shot clock not used in those days?  Would a footnote be helpful to clarify?
The table of players looks fine; I see you've added a "Source:" line below to have something to attach the reference too.  I think that's OK, but another idea would be to add a title line to the top of the table, saying "1938–39 roster" or something like that, and attaching the ref to that.  You could do something similar for the schedule table, perhaps combining the two article sections into "Roster and schedule" to avoid the repetition of the word "Schedule".  Just a suggestion.
"#Rankings from AP Poll. (#) Tournament seedings in parentheses."  The rankings column is blank, and I don't see any parenthetical seedings, unless I'm looking in the wrong place.
A general comment about the "Regular season" section: I don't review many sports articles, so I'm not familiar with the expectations.  Is it usual to include coverage of individual games, as the first paragraph of this section does, when there's no information in the text beyond what can be gleaned from the schedule/results table above?  It would make more sense to me if coverage of games with no extra notes were compressed -- perhaps something like "The Webfoots began the 1938&ndash1939 season with three consecutive victories over two Portland teams and a team representing Signal Oil, and then embarked on a ..."?  If the more detailed coverage is standard in these articles, I'm not going to object, but it seems unnecessary.
How about giving the final PCC standings table?  As it stands I'm not clear how many teams are in the conference -- looks like just three others?  Or it's in two halves, and California was in the other half?  I see in the Postseason section that that's correct.  I think a table, at least of the northern division, would help basketball ignoramuses like me.
"one season later, they ended tied for third, as all but one of the players from the championship team had graduated": I know what you mean but I don't think "as" is the way to say this -- it implies that there was no possibility of other players performing as well as the graduates.  Perhaps "the following season, all but one of the players from the championship team had graduated, and the Webfoots ended tied for third".
-- That's it for the article review; I'll have a look at the sources later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources look good.  I'm placing this on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
First four comments above are done.
Removed the Hobson shot clock bit.
I dipped into my bag of list-making tricks and added a table caption for the roster, which looks rather nice (at least I think so). The schedule was more troublesome, as its coding does not allow for table captions. The best I could do was tucking cites in the internal table headings.
I was able to remove the rankings column and note, but the seedings note doesn't look like it can be removed. There weren't any seedings back then, so it's unnecessary, but I'm not sure if anything can be done about it short of building a new table. I'd consider that a last resort, just because it would be a big timesink.
There aren't many sports season FAs, but the ones I've seen do tend to include details when available; the college basketball season GAs vary by a lot, though. Let me think about this tonight.
Will try to add a division standings table tonight.
Your last point is done. Thanks for taking up the review so quickly after it became marked as unreviewed at GAN; it's been a long wait. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome.  I can pass this now if you have trouble with the division standings table; I think it would be nice but it's really not necessary.  I'll defer to your experience on the details; I'll just note that just about every other sentence in that section does give additional information about the game, such as who the leading scorers were; it's just that first paragraph that seemed unnecessary to me.  For the seedings note, I assume that this early in the tournament's history there were no seedings.  Perhaps leave a note on that table's talk page requesting a change to make that note optional?  Unless the seedings began the very next year, this is going to come up again in other articles, so a switch to turn the note off would be handy.  Not necessary for GA though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I just finished a PCC North standings table. Since you struck the comment on details, I'll leave them alone. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)