This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
I've followed the work on this article, and it is quite impressive. I'll note below comments/suggestions that occur to me.
I'll read through those. As for that source, the contention is more that they were often considered the greatest Southern team (certainly were, can check the footnotes for those claims in the post-season field. I believe Camp or someone picked Tech, with Vandy second, and the rest I've seen talk about it say Vandy), and that therefore they get thrown into the conversation of best teams of that year during any time. I will still try to find a better source though. Also, I do try to edit along the way but am a lot worse at it as I write and not after, and even then I readily admit my writing could use improvements. Thanks for any suggestions; and no I am not really a Vandy fan, but an ancestor of mine was on the team, which allowed me to get through what would've been square-one of gathering sources for writing such an article. I have tried to be unbiased (of course), but nonetheless tell the season through Vandy's lens so to speak as best I could; pardon if I ran astray anywhere.
I'll also see what I can do to make that part about conference titles less confusing, some elements of the conference alignment at the time still have me confused. Perhaps I can brush up the footnote I have explaining it, it was originally in that introductory part but later moved to the post-season part. It's citation 111 at the moment, and it is an attempt to make the part you were curious about understood. If you are also just interested yourself in quelling the confusion, in 1921 Vanderbilt was Co-Champions of the SIAA finishing with the same record as Georgia, undefeated with one tie; and the one tie was Georgia v. Vandy. In 1922, the Southern Conference was established, and Vanderbilt was one of its champions that year as outlined in the article. Cake ( talk) 21:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Daniel Case ( talk · contribs) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I am printing this out for review ... hopefully I will have something to say within a day or two. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright. This didn't take long when I got down to it; it shouldn't take long here.
I regret to say that I do not find it is up to the good article criteria.
It was clearly well-researched. But even so, far more paragraphs end without footnotes than I was able to tag as needing such; which alone was enough for me to rule out passing this. The solution to that problem, however, may actually be easy, for there is far more detail than necessary, to the point that the article is almost collapsing under its weight. Do we really need separate sections for each half of all but one of these football games played almost a century ago? Especially all the substitutions (see long list in last graf of Week 2)? You've got the box scores; that and a paragraph or (at most) two summarizing the game is all we need (oh, and I'd consider cutting the box with the conference standings as well). The current level of detail would probably be expected of a wiki devoted to Vanderbilt athletics, and would be a definite FA on a wiki devoted to Vanderbilt generally. But it is way more than we need on Wikipedia.
Fortunately, one of the nice things about writing so much is that improving the article becomes a matter of subtraction rather than addition. This may eliminate the need for some (probably many) of those uncited paragraphs, and the tedious and error-prone process of matching them to sources that you probably already have. In other words, you've done the hard part (at least physically—emotionally I suspect you will have some darlings to kill, as William Faulkner once put it) I recall hearing once, and never forgetting, that the secret of writing well is not so much knowing what to put in but what to leave out (I wish I could find out who said it; Google is not being helpful). Certainly an article about such a narrow subject as this with 174 separate footnotes that took 53 pages to print out (in Firefox, anyway) cannot but benefit from trimming.
Having gotten leaner, however, the article will still have to get meaner. Its tone, style and usage is far too often too journalistic ... it reads too frequently like it was written by a retired sportswriter for the anniversary special program, not an encyclopedist, waxing (or trying to wax) lyrical when it tells us how the new stadium was named after a former quarterback who "died over French skies" during World War I. Just tell us his plane was shot down—that's more direct and tells us what we need to know (And I like that "over French skies" bit—was he in a space capsule or something? That would be interesting ). Of course, since I've changed this already, you'll have to consider an example to follow. Elsewhere, years "see" often enough that I wonder why we aren't training them to assist the visually impaired, and the passive voice leads sentences and clauses too often ("It was noted ...")
There is also much inconsistent usage. In the same second graf of the intro we read of ties being "with" other teams, then later of Vanderbilt's tie "against" Michigan. Numbers seem to be spelled out or not for no particular reason.
And lastly, despite the level of detail of gameplay, there are places where I was interested enough to want to know more. The second graf of the intro tells us this was "one of the best seasons in Vanderbilt and Southern football history"? There's a huge difference between the first and second set. In the first case I'd be interested to know how it ranks among Vanderbilt seasons, and I believe this is something you can find out and tell us. In the second ... wow. Was that just at that time? Or ever? If the latter, it's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, given all the Southern college football that's come since.
I'd also like to know why this was the first season to bar freshmen from play. Was this a conference rule? A school rule? Surely there would be some source offering more explanation here.
There are more issues with this article than could be addressed in the time that putting it on hold would last. For these reasons I am failing it. Certainly, you would be free to renominate it after you have addressed the issue (I'll also add it to the WP:TENN worklist too; maybe you could get some help that way if you want it). Daniel Case ( talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BU Rob13 ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I will begin reviewing this tonight. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
No comments.
Some of these are duplicated from above recommendations that haven't been addressed. If you think they shouldn't be adopted, happy to discuss.
Anything I haven't commented on in this section doesn't need further changes as far as I can tell. There were a few comments you questioned above where I agreed with your responses, so don't worry about going back and fixing those things. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
I've followed the work on this article, and it is quite impressive. I'll note below comments/suggestions that occur to me.
I'll read through those. As for that source, the contention is more that they were often considered the greatest Southern team (certainly were, can check the footnotes for those claims in the post-season field. I believe Camp or someone picked Tech, with Vandy second, and the rest I've seen talk about it say Vandy), and that therefore they get thrown into the conversation of best teams of that year during any time. I will still try to find a better source though. Also, I do try to edit along the way but am a lot worse at it as I write and not after, and even then I readily admit my writing could use improvements. Thanks for any suggestions; and no I am not really a Vandy fan, but an ancestor of mine was on the team, which allowed me to get through what would've been square-one of gathering sources for writing such an article. I have tried to be unbiased (of course), but nonetheless tell the season through Vandy's lens so to speak as best I could; pardon if I ran astray anywhere.
I'll also see what I can do to make that part about conference titles less confusing, some elements of the conference alignment at the time still have me confused. Perhaps I can brush up the footnote I have explaining it, it was originally in that introductory part but later moved to the post-season part. It's citation 111 at the moment, and it is an attempt to make the part you were curious about understood. If you are also just interested yourself in quelling the confusion, in 1921 Vanderbilt was Co-Champions of the SIAA finishing with the same record as Georgia, undefeated with one tie; and the one tie was Georgia v. Vandy. In 1922, the Southern Conference was established, and Vanderbilt was one of its champions that year as outlined in the article. Cake ( talk) 21:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Daniel Case ( talk · contribs) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I am printing this out for review ... hopefully I will have something to say within a day or two. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright. This didn't take long when I got down to it; it shouldn't take long here.
I regret to say that I do not find it is up to the good article criteria.
It was clearly well-researched. But even so, far more paragraphs end without footnotes than I was able to tag as needing such; which alone was enough for me to rule out passing this. The solution to that problem, however, may actually be easy, for there is far more detail than necessary, to the point that the article is almost collapsing under its weight. Do we really need separate sections for each half of all but one of these football games played almost a century ago? Especially all the substitutions (see long list in last graf of Week 2)? You've got the box scores; that and a paragraph or (at most) two summarizing the game is all we need (oh, and I'd consider cutting the box with the conference standings as well). The current level of detail would probably be expected of a wiki devoted to Vanderbilt athletics, and would be a definite FA on a wiki devoted to Vanderbilt generally. But it is way more than we need on Wikipedia.
Fortunately, one of the nice things about writing so much is that improving the article becomes a matter of subtraction rather than addition. This may eliminate the need for some (probably many) of those uncited paragraphs, and the tedious and error-prone process of matching them to sources that you probably already have. In other words, you've done the hard part (at least physically—emotionally I suspect you will have some darlings to kill, as William Faulkner once put it) I recall hearing once, and never forgetting, that the secret of writing well is not so much knowing what to put in but what to leave out (I wish I could find out who said it; Google is not being helpful). Certainly an article about such a narrow subject as this with 174 separate footnotes that took 53 pages to print out (in Firefox, anyway) cannot but benefit from trimming.
Having gotten leaner, however, the article will still have to get meaner. Its tone, style and usage is far too often too journalistic ... it reads too frequently like it was written by a retired sportswriter for the anniversary special program, not an encyclopedist, waxing (or trying to wax) lyrical when it tells us how the new stadium was named after a former quarterback who "died over French skies" during World War I. Just tell us his plane was shot down—that's more direct and tells us what we need to know (And I like that "over French skies" bit—was he in a space capsule or something? That would be interesting ). Of course, since I've changed this already, you'll have to consider an example to follow. Elsewhere, years "see" often enough that I wonder why we aren't training them to assist the visually impaired, and the passive voice leads sentences and clauses too often ("It was noted ...")
There is also much inconsistent usage. In the same second graf of the intro we read of ties being "with" other teams, then later of Vanderbilt's tie "against" Michigan. Numbers seem to be spelled out or not for no particular reason.
And lastly, despite the level of detail of gameplay, there are places where I was interested enough to want to know more. The second graf of the intro tells us this was "one of the best seasons in Vanderbilt and Southern football history"? There's a huge difference between the first and second set. In the first case I'd be interested to know how it ranks among Vanderbilt seasons, and I believe this is something you can find out and tell us. In the second ... wow. Was that just at that time? Or ever? If the latter, it's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, given all the Southern college football that's come since.
I'd also like to know why this was the first season to bar freshmen from play. Was this a conference rule? A school rule? Surely there would be some source offering more explanation here.
There are more issues with this article than could be addressed in the time that putting it on hold would last. For these reasons I am failing it. Certainly, you would be free to renominate it after you have addressed the issue (I'll also add it to the WP:TENN worklist too; maybe you could get some help that way if you want it). Daniel Case ( talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BU Rob13 ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I will begin reviewing this tonight. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
No comments.
Some of these are duplicated from above recommendations that haven't been addressed. If you think they shouldn't be adopted, happy to discuss.
Anything I haven't commented on in this section doesn't need further changes as far as I can tell. There were a few comments you questioned above where I agreed with your responses, so don't worry about going back and fixing those things. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)