Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not here to grant or reject your GA status, but consider this a quick peer review before the reviewer comes by.
Overall, a nicely written article that manages to avoid sounding completely like a recruitment brochure.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The article prose is well-written and very complete. Quite an interesting read. It's short on reference citations in a couple of minor areas, but overall I think it still meets the GA criteria. The article appears to be stable, other than some minor anonymous vandalism, and it doesn't look like there's any major edit warring, despite the current football season in progress. the images all meet the criteria as well. So this article will be listed as a Good Article. Good work!
One area that could be improved, besides the minor missing references, might be the listing of items under 'individual achievements' at the end. It's getting kind of long and perhaps some of this information could be moved to separately-linked list pages?
Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I have expressed my concerns several times and have come up with a multitude of arguments against the All-Time Lists. Here's a synopsis of my arguments against them:
I'm pretty sure we'll come to a compromise but the way it looks right now is garbage and we need to either cut out the All-Time lists or reformat them to increase the article's brevity and style.-- Excaliburhorn 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that a couple of the lists that have been added are definite and obvious copyvios and I have thus removed them (Georgia Tech's All-Time Football Team and Georgia Tech's All-Time Roster). This is notice that re-adding these lists demonstrates willful copyright violation and will be treated as such. LaMenta3 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar with the current dispute, we are arguing over the inclusion of three "All-time lists", as seen in this diff. To firmly establish consensus, once and for all, we will do a straw poll. I'm quite aware that " voting is evil", but remember that "...participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion, and focusing a long or unruly conversation on a specific question at hand." Also note that "if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus -- although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions." It appears we have only two options here, though if someone can think of another option that might accommodate both sides, please feel free to bring it up. To clarify everyone's opinions here, can each person post their current feeling about the list situation, below? One comment per line, thanks. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration. This straw poll is inapproprate for several reasons. While a newcomer, I have certain understanding of the rules. Having researched the dispute resolution I find that the editors here have breeched their responsibilites and I cannot "assume good faith". Some editors, if not all, have engaged in what amounts to 3RR, harrassment, cyber-bullying, and darn near legal threats (by saying an revert is fair warning to willfull copyvio). Although LaMenta3 did not say she was going to sue, the threat was real. The consensus that was reached by moving the list from the GaTech Athletic site to Ga Tech football site was agreed upon. That was broken by constant reverts by editors. This is abuse of power. I have not looked into the exact hour of things, however, the intent by editors here is clear. Your way or no way. Further, Disavian and Excaliburhorn, and B, have been particularly abusive. I see what really is a mob mentality here and I find that offensive. Because there is a process in place this straw poll is meaningless. I suggest all the editors here review ALL of the dispute resolution rules and look into your hearts and self-judge your actions. There should be some time apart and should not any any collusion to come up with a "poll" that was begun after I have requested arbitration. I reject the unencyclopedic claim on its face. I think that the editors here ought to have held themselves to a higher standard that to which they behaved. The presumption should be that editors know the rules and will not collude to abuse the rules to get their own way. Were it up to me all of the editors here would be suspended for a time, as has happened on other cases. There are many violations that I will be documenting to the arbitration committee. You can look to the rules yourselves and you can easily see where i will be going. I would suggest that the editors refrain from any further abuses and what may even perceived as abuses until the resolutions comes. 72.0.36.36 01:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead to the article as per Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football/archive1. It's not perfect, and I think I might have put a little too much focus on the rivalry angle, but it's better than what was there. If anyone has any ideas as to how to balance out the focus a bit more, please make changes. Lots of them. If, on the other hand, you think what I wrote is good, please tell me so as I'm very insecure! ;) LaMenta3 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I counted (twice) 49, not 48, on the list in the article. I went ahead and made edits reflecting this. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Strikehold ( talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We're missing the '56 Pitt-GT Gator Bowl and the old Michigan game with Gerald Ford. Both relate to GT's segregationism and are pretty famous incidents in college football history. Will look in AJC archives for old articles. -- Excaliburhorn ( talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bobby Dodd 1952.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_28#File:Georgia Tech.png.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The article referenced by the footnote, by Cumberland U. historian G. Frank Burns, about this doesn't at all state what the article says that it does, namely that this Cumberland team was "commonfolk" off of the campus. It says that the football program at Cumberland had been resumed and that this team, although young and inexperienced, had apparently played several other games earlier in the season, albeit hardly to the level which had tied Heisman's Clemson team 11 – 11 for the "Southern Championship" years earlier. 75.216.94.48 ( talk) 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence of the lead says that the football team is known as the Ramblin' Wreck. It's not sourced, and I don't think it's true. The article Ramblin' Wreck says the term refers to the mascot car and to the students and alumni. Loraof ( talk) 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not here to grant or reject your GA status, but consider this a quick peer review before the reviewer comes by.
Overall, a nicely written article that manages to avoid sounding completely like a recruitment brochure.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The article prose is well-written and very complete. Quite an interesting read. It's short on reference citations in a couple of minor areas, but overall I think it still meets the GA criteria. The article appears to be stable, other than some minor anonymous vandalism, and it doesn't look like there's any major edit warring, despite the current football season in progress. the images all meet the criteria as well. So this article will be listed as a Good Article. Good work!
One area that could be improved, besides the minor missing references, might be the listing of items under 'individual achievements' at the end. It's getting kind of long and perhaps some of this information could be moved to separately-linked list pages?
Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I have expressed my concerns several times and have come up with a multitude of arguments against the All-Time Lists. Here's a synopsis of my arguments against them:
I'm pretty sure we'll come to a compromise but the way it looks right now is garbage and we need to either cut out the All-Time lists or reformat them to increase the article's brevity and style.-- Excaliburhorn 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that a couple of the lists that have been added are definite and obvious copyvios and I have thus removed them (Georgia Tech's All-Time Football Team and Georgia Tech's All-Time Roster). This is notice that re-adding these lists demonstrates willful copyright violation and will be treated as such. LaMenta3 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar with the current dispute, we are arguing over the inclusion of three "All-time lists", as seen in this diff. To firmly establish consensus, once and for all, we will do a straw poll. I'm quite aware that " voting is evil", but remember that "...participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion, and focusing a long or unruly conversation on a specific question at hand." Also note that "if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus -- although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions." It appears we have only two options here, though if someone can think of another option that might accommodate both sides, please feel free to bring it up. To clarify everyone's opinions here, can each person post their current feeling about the list situation, below? One comment per line, thanks. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration. This straw poll is inapproprate for several reasons. While a newcomer, I have certain understanding of the rules. Having researched the dispute resolution I find that the editors here have breeched their responsibilites and I cannot "assume good faith". Some editors, if not all, have engaged in what amounts to 3RR, harrassment, cyber-bullying, and darn near legal threats (by saying an revert is fair warning to willfull copyvio). Although LaMenta3 did not say she was going to sue, the threat was real. The consensus that was reached by moving the list from the GaTech Athletic site to Ga Tech football site was agreed upon. That was broken by constant reverts by editors. This is abuse of power. I have not looked into the exact hour of things, however, the intent by editors here is clear. Your way or no way. Further, Disavian and Excaliburhorn, and B, have been particularly abusive. I see what really is a mob mentality here and I find that offensive. Because there is a process in place this straw poll is meaningless. I suggest all the editors here review ALL of the dispute resolution rules and look into your hearts and self-judge your actions. There should be some time apart and should not any any collusion to come up with a "poll" that was begun after I have requested arbitration. I reject the unencyclopedic claim on its face. I think that the editors here ought to have held themselves to a higher standard that to which they behaved. The presumption should be that editors know the rules and will not collude to abuse the rules to get their own way. Were it up to me all of the editors here would be suspended for a time, as has happened on other cases. There are many violations that I will be documenting to the arbitration committee. You can look to the rules yourselves and you can easily see where i will be going. I would suggest that the editors refrain from any further abuses and what may even perceived as abuses until the resolutions comes. 72.0.36.36 01:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead to the article as per Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football/archive1. It's not perfect, and I think I might have put a little too much focus on the rivalry angle, but it's better than what was there. If anyone has any ideas as to how to balance out the focus a bit more, please make changes. Lots of them. If, on the other hand, you think what I wrote is good, please tell me so as I'm very insecure! ;) LaMenta3 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I counted (twice) 49, not 48, on the list in the article. I went ahead and made edits reflecting this. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Strikehold ( talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We're missing the '56 Pitt-GT Gator Bowl and the old Michigan game with Gerald Ford. Both relate to GT's segregationism and are pretty famous incidents in college football history. Will look in AJC archives for old articles. -- Excaliburhorn ( talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bobby Dodd 1952.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_28#File:Georgia Tech.png.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The article referenced by the footnote, by Cumberland U. historian G. Frank Burns, about this doesn't at all state what the article says that it does, namely that this Cumberland team was "commonfolk" off of the campus. It says that the football program at Cumberland had been resumed and that this team, although young and inexperienced, had apparently played several other games earlier in the season, albeit hardly to the level which had tied Heisman's Clemson team 11 – 11 for the "Southern Championship" years earlier. 75.216.94.48 ( talk) 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence of the lead says that the football team is known as the Ramblin' Wreck. It's not sourced, and I don't think it's true. The article Ramblin' Wreck says the term refers to the mascot car and to the students and alumni. Loraof ( talk) 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)