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

Reviewer: Mackensen ( talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello MisterCake ( talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead discusses the team's place in history, but this information isn't discussed in the article itself (perhaps in a "Legacy" section?) Also, there's a discussion of the "jump shift" which appears nowhere else in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This is mostly fine, but splitting out book sources into a separate section and referencing them with shortened footnotes would be helpful. Done.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I stopped marking up referencing problems after the Preseason section. While overall sourcing is good, there are too many cases of incomplete citations, missing page numbers, and facts not found in the citations given. I don't doubt that what's been written is accurate, but I had trouble verifying it.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None that I found; all assertions are supported from other works.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None that I found
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Subject to my organizational concerns above, this article has the expected coverage for a single football season.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Are the starting lineups for each game relevant? Yes, they are.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The source for many of these images is unclear. Images created prior to 1923 but not published until after 1923 (particularly archival material) could still be subject to copyright. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Unpublished_works. I'll conduct a more thorough review of each image soon. See list below.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please add alt text for the images
	7. Overall assessment.

Review in progress. I've also flagged an issue with the Wake Forest section on the talk page which will need to be resolved. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Initial review complete. I've identified some issues but nothing here seems insurmountable. Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Thank you very much mackensen. In my own way I've tried to help wikipedia cover football in the south in these olden days, and '17 Tech is the cornerstone for that subject. Fear of cluttering up your table has me unsure where to post my feedback. I tried to brush up the lead as I found it difficult to resolve those issues. Their claim of greatest southern team of the era and the jump shift sort of pervade the whole article. The jump shift would've been every offensive play. Their legacy was hindered by a loss to Pitt the next year, such that it reinforced the notion of southern teams as pretenders if anything. The legacy in the sense captured by the lead was more immediate. To draw an analogy, Centre's defeat of Harvard in 1921 hasn't much of a "legacy," but it sure made an impact. Cake ( talk) 22:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Let's just discuss down here (the table isn't helpful for discussion but the lists are even worse). My only issue with the lead is that it summarize the article so there shouldn't be ideas discussed there which aren't discussed in the body. I'll take a stab at a section. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• I renamed and expanded the "Before" and "After the season" sections and trimmed down the lead, so that there's no unique information there. Does that work for you? Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yes especially the lead is much better. Pasting my version of the same information parroted with sources in the before section seems a little clumsy, but if that were brushed up a little it would all flow nicely. I wonder if I should mention how Strupper was deaf and used this to his advantage with hand signals and lip reading; or how Guyon was a full-blooded indian but nobody seemed to care since his face was more attractive than Jim Thorpe's. Cake ( talk) 00:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• If you've got the sources then those are fascinating details (I had wondered how early 1900s Georgia felt about Guyon). I think I'd put them into the Before section. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hope I am not too late in my broader comments. First some trivia - though it never caught on, sportswriters tried to nickname Guyon "Indian Joe," like in Tom Sawyer except enunciated properly. Been able to cross-reference a few things with that extra search term.

• On lead: I am still unsure whether I should explain the jump shift at all. I struggle to do it as brief as would be pretty. The "Heisman Shift" is one of the vivid images of early football. 'Pup' puts his hands on his hips, looks behind him as he stretches the torso a bit, then gets down in his stance to hike the ball (2 hands in those days of the fat rugby hall), the shift, a second elapses, and the Tornado charges on.
• I concur here and have to thank you - I did not know how to do things like the Notes and having the source linked as e. g. McCarty 1988a, though I had surely seen both before.
• The wealth of sources on this team probably had me get lazy at points. Will try and go through each source you haven't glossed over already shortly — go through the article with a fine toothed comb so to speak.
• On starting lineups One relishes when the article includes them, and it is pretty standard practice (e. g. 1922 Michigan Wolverines football team). Some wikipedia articles even include all the substitutions as well. While that's interesting, I think that's a bit much. You might argue the starting lineups are a fine thing to do until one gets a complete picture of the roster and/or lettermen; and then becomes redundant. However, it is uncanny how interchangeable players were in those days, and knowing e. g. how many games they started can be useful. For one example, consider how little you might know about the starters of the 1928 Florida Gators football team if you only knew the "Phantom Four." On the subject, supposedly there were jersey numbers post-1913, and so maybe "Big Six" was number 6, but as yet unable to find a source with numbers. It can be difficult since well after 1917 the same player can have a different number depending on the color (home/away) or year. Cake ( talk) 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Think the copyeditors guild and such usually handles my alt text, so I will need to re-read the article on that wiki-art. Cake ( talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your quick attention on everything; this has been an interesting review for me. You've won me over completely on lineups--I hadn't considered how important they were in this era. Once you've finished your review I'll go through the sources again and then hopefully we can resolve 2b. After that it's just images, which won't take long. This is looking really, really good. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Let me know if I missed any sources in the game accounts. Do I source calculator.exe for the average of 55 to 2? Also, surely the referee of the Tulane game is George Watkins, but I cannot prove this. Cake ( talk) 04:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Passing now. Thank you for all your hard work on this. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Images

• Y File:1917GaTechTeamPic.png: I tracked down the original New York Times article and uploaded a higher-resolution version: File:1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team.jpg.
• Y File:WalkerCarpenter.jpg: No evidence that this was published on or before 1923. It's obviously extracted from a larger image. File:Walker Carpenter (October 1917).jpg is an alternative which was published in 1917. Now confirmed; 1919 at the latest.
• ? File:Everett Strupper.jpg: Original source is down, but I found an alternate at [1]. As with the Walker Carpenter image, there's no evidence that this was published on or before 1923. File:Everett Strupper (October 1917).jpg is an alternative which was published in 1917.
• ? File:TechPenn1917.jpg: The Georgia Tech archive lists George C. Griffin as the "contributor" (photographer unknown) and states that "permission to publish must be obtained from the Head of Archives and Special Collections." No evidence that the photograph was published prior to 1923. While the Blue Print (the yearbook) is listed as a "resource", I did not find this photograph published in the 1918 yearbook.
• ? File:Joe Guyon 1918.gif: Also from the George C. Griffin collection. Same issue.
• Y File:Moon Ducote.jpg: Published in 1925 without a copyright notice.
• Y File:Albert Hill (1917).jpg: Published in 1917; in the public domain.
• Y File:Fincherplacekick.jpg: Another George C. Griffin image; status is uncertain. See [2]. Published in 1918 Blue Print.
• Y File:Golden Tornado (Georgia Tech, 1917).png. Tiptop25 doesn't indicate a source, so we can't verify the publication date. There's a similar image in the 1918 Blue Print, and I'm pretty sure I've seen this one elsewhere. Edit: Replaced by File:1917 Georgia Tech backfield.jpg.

• Almost certain the last one was taken from one of the Technique newspapers. I forget which one but as I go over these I will surely find it. Cake ( talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've been looking there too. I'm convinced that I saw it earlier today. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Nice doll-faced picture of Strupper you found. The one with the helmet seems the nicest. Its squareness is helpful. Cake ( talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• The backfield picture is from the Technique on November 6, page 5. The Vandy game. Cake ( talk) 01:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• So it is, good catch. I'll upload a new crop to Commons. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: I've found an even better team picture, the one from which Carpenter is cropped. It has the mark "F. E. Lee Co. 1919" ( here is the crop). Here is yet another of the team picture. Here is another image of the Penn contest. Fincher's placekick is from the 1918 Blue Print. Cake ( talk) 13:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Not sure if this is noteworthy, but the college hall of fame also uses that image of Guyon. Also, hmm.. for what this is from Cake ( talk) 00:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: I have removed all the images which might draw controversy aside from Guyon's, which is in commons. I will reluctantly remove that too if I must. Cake ( talk) 06:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Good enough for me. In the alternative, I noticed a number of newspapers running an image of Guyon with a high kick to the right. Mackensen (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I saw that too. However, a punting image is almost necessarily vertical and so its shape is a bother. Also, the only good version I could find online had a big watermark over it. Tried for a long time to find the book talking about 1914 football with an image of the Tech-Penn game in it - never did find it. Thanks again for your help in this. Cake ( talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply