Talk:Maryland Terrapins football/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

Just needs a bit of housekeeping in lead and with referencing. Only 3 or 4 issues that shouldn't take more than a few edits to fix. Will put the page on my watchlist and will hope to be passing it soon! JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lead needs to be cut down and summarised a bit better
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Just a couple of references needed
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
See NPOV below
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Nomination on hold for 7 days or until such time as it passes

General article problems[edit]

Spelling - Pretty clean. Fixed preseason > pre-season

I believe that is incorrect, at least in an American English context. Here are some sources: [1], [2], and [3]. None of those references have an entry for "pre-season". I see that you are located in Australia, so there may be a difference in usage or acceptance, but in American English, "preseason" is a word. Strikehold (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it if you feel the urge, I simply did it (not because I'm Australian) because on Wikipedia, preseason redirects to pre-season, therefore I figured that must be the most commonly accepted way to spell it. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 02:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*NPOV - In 1984, Maryland defeated the defending national champions, sixth-ranked Miami, in what was the greatest comeback in college football history. - It should be noted that The Baltimore Sun has not directly said this is the greatest comeback of all time in College Football, therefore you can't reference it as 'the greatest comeback'. If you can find a reference for a statistic that shows it is the greatest comeback, or a reliable source stating it, then it can be claimed as such.

In the intended sense "greatest comeback" was not a subjective term, but meant a comeback from the greatest margin. See the article that is referenced in the next line, which does call the Michigan State-Northwestern game the "greatest comeback" -- which was the game that finally surpassed the Maryland-Miami game. It says:
"Nearly an hour after the game, Drew Stanton was trying to digest what he'd just been a part of -- the greatest comeback in NCAA Division I-A history ... Until this riveting game, the biggest comeback in Division I-A was 31 points -- when Maryland beat Miami 42-40 on Nov. 10, 1984, and when Ohio State defeated Minnesota 41-37 on Oct. 28, 1989."
But to address your concern, I reworded it a little bit and added another reference which calls it the "greatest comeback".

*Referencing - Despite the failure to deliver a winning season, Vanderlinden did oversee substantive improvement in the program. How so?

I don't follow you here. That line is a summary of the rest of the paragraph, which is cited. Namely:
"In 1999, Maryland allowed a conference low of 11 sacks compared with 56 two years prior, and they led the conference in rushing after being ranked last in 1997. In 1998, the Terrapins were one of the most improved teams in defense, scoring defense, passing defense, and rushing.[51] During Vanderlinden's tenure, Maryland also recruited several key players who were instrumental in the team's later success.[52]"

This is my mistake, I misread the content JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 02:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~**In 1999, Maryland allowed a conference low of 11 sacks compared with 56 two years prior, and they led the conference in rushing after being ranked last in 1997.~~ Citation needed.

It is referenced after the next line. I added another citation to make it clearer. Strikehold (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content summary[edit]

Lead

The lead section needs to be looked at a little, I think the second paragraph is too much of a history summary. The MoS states that:

define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies

Due to it only being a good article nomination, I'd be happy if the second paragraph was cut down a little to summarise more key aspects of it's history as it doesn't 'draw' me into the article. If anyone disagrees, I'd be more than happy to put this nomination up for a second opinion.

I've worked on the lead a bit. Strikehold (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of cutting down that last paragraph a little more? Maybe it could read something like: Head coaches have been Bob from 1905 to 1912 winning four championships, Gary from 1912 to 1941 etc.. Otherwise I'd be happy to approve this article. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think the third paragraph is about as short as I am comfortable with, to summarize the "History" section of the article, which is the great bulk of the article itself. The lead should indeed provide a brief overview, but also a summary of the main body's actual content. At present, in the third paragraph, each clause or sentence is roughly analogous to the (relatively lengthy) subsections in the history section. Strikehold (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph appears to be an appropriate length to me. The problem with longer articles is managing to cram everything into the four/five paragraph limit. This seems to work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

See referencing and NPOV.
Home stadium

Fine.

Tradition

Fine.

Team achievements

Fine.

Individual honors

Fine.

References

I'll be nit picky about it and say it needs just a little tidying up. To meet WP:HARV, retrieval dates must be given and should be at the end of a reference following a period rather than comma. You don't have to fix every single one to pass GA, but perhaps some initiative towards tidying it up would be nice.

This article does not use parenthetical references at all, which is what WP:HARV addresses. Also, WP:HARV is not policy or guideline and I do not believe there is any mandate for the actual reference system used (punctuation, etc), just the information required in them (according to WP:CITE: the author, title, date, publisher). I also disagree in the utility of access dates when publication dates are already present (in something like an on-line newspaper article; I could see an argument in the case of a personal website or something of that nature). In my opinion, they add no new information. A book reference does not require a "read on" date, for example, which I think is a fair parallel. Strikehold (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying, I was being very nit picky and it would be something that would be more looked at in a feature article nomination. However, the good article guidelines do state: Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references. The point was more tidying up to make them look uniform and consistent rather than anything. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am a little confused, though. From a quick glance, I believe that they are consistent. The format I was using is: "Author, Title, Page, Publication, Date, Publisher, ISBN." while obviously omitting any that are not applicable. I may be wrong, though, there may be some inconsistent formatting. I will look over it and make corrections for any I see in the next day or so. Strikehold (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Nothing else you can find? A link to offsite history? A YouTube video? Surely there is more than one relevant link avaliable.

As far as I know, nothing that wasn't cited or incorporated already. I see the need for an external link to the official website, but off the top of my head, no, I don't see any others needed. I wouldn't oppose more if they are new and relevant. Strikehold (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this has helped! JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I have put this nomination up for second opinion, perhaps another editor can be more help than myself. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 07:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the lead. The list of coaches seems like a good way to provide a history but it turns the third paragraph into a list of coaches instead. Don't get me wrong, it is really close and other editors might disagree but it looks like a bit of tightening would improve the lead. I didn't notice the time stamps on the above discussion. If the lead is a comfortable length for others than I might be reading it incorrectly. Everyone reads an article different.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in saying that it is a list of coaches--partly. It lists the coaches who have had the greatest impact (Byrd, Tatum, Claiborne, Ross, and Friedgen), while it does not mention dozens of others who had relatively undistinguished tenures. I think it also fairly covers (briefly), the general ups and downs of the program, and the controversies (like the Len Bias impact on football). So, I think that does a pretty good job summarizing the lengthy history section as a whole. Each section has a short summary, either a clause or a sentence. If someone thinks it is too long, and they are willing to write an alternative or suggest specifics to cut, I am certainly open to considering a change though. Strikehold (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed. I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football for some inspiration but their featured and good articles are players, seasons, games and mascots. You might actually be working on one of the better team pages out there! Making a mention for a second opinion on their talk page might help.

I think my biggest concern is you have essentially duplicated the achievement paragraph of the lead in the third paragraph. Have you considered integrating the two and cutting out random tidbits about the coaches? You are using the coaches as benchmarks for the program which completely disregards the players and other aspects. That is why it comes across as a list. For example, "Harry C. "Curley" Byrd, a student-athlete at Maryland, became head football coach in 1911 and served in that role for two decades before he became the university president." looks like way too much information in the lead for a single man in the organization's long history. "Curley" Byrd was the coach and this happened" might be better.

If the first paragraph stayed as is along with trimming and merging the next two paragraphs there might be room to add a few lines on the Tradition's subsections. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the complete article this actually might be missing as is. In my opinion, the lead is not too long but the third gives too much weight to certain coaches and compliments the second in a fashion that comes across long.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) The only duplication from the second paragraph in the third paragraph is the mention of the wire national championship. That is not actually a duplication, as the second para mentions both championships, and the third mentions the wire national championships (contemporary, i.e. not retroactive). I think coaches are a fair benchmark. By comparison on any given team there are 50+ players who each stay only for three to four years. Coaches are the executives of the teams and are therefore credited with the success or failure of the program. Moreover, I do not think the players are neglected, as their accomplishments are also mentioned (NFL Draftees, All-Americans, etc).

Curley Byrd is without a doubt the most influential coach in school history. He was a star athlete in four or five sports, football and other sports coach for 23 years, and then the university president for a few decades where he continued patronage of the athletics program. He has been called the father of the program and the football stadium is named after him (two were actually). The other coaches mentioned were the most successful coaches, the criteria for their inclusion that I used was winning a conference championship, which each did. They are also used to subdivide the article itself into eras so it is only natural that the focus be one them.

I added some more info on the "Traditions" section to the lead as you suggested. Strikehold (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine about Byrd but is all that info needed in the lead? The duplication is how it reads. Both the second and third paragraphs read as: "LOOK HOW AWESOME THEY ARE". I don't think that was your intent but that is how it has come across to someone completely new to reading the article. The reviewer has a concern with the length of the lead ad it makes some sense. Take the advice instead of pushing against it.

The new lines look good.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and if you see above, another user who has considerable experience writing FA and GA-quality college football articles, JKBrooks, agrees with me that the original lead is an appropriate length. I hardly think this is "pushing against" improving the article. The lead complies with WP:LEAD in providing both a summary and overview and in size. WP:LEAD states that for an article of this length, ~30,000 characters, the lead should be three to four paragraphs long, which makes this is an appropriately sized (actually on the short side) lead.

What information is duplicated? The second paragraph reflects the team's achievements (a separate section), but the third reflects the team history section (multiple subsections), which includes both good and bad. There is no bias apparent to me there. It mentions long periods of mediocre performance between Tatum and Claiborne and Ross and Friedgen and the controversy after Len Bias' death, and Friedgen's inability to repeat his early success. As for Byrd, yes, that is a summary of the early history paragraph, so it is needed in the lead for a complete summary of the article. Strikehold (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the tone is duplicated. Again like I mentioned, this is probably what the other editor perceived as being too long. You don't see that since you wrote it and are looking at it from a completely different angle. You can disagree all you want but another editor was trying to help you make this a better article (it is already pretty good) and instead of having it be promoted it is sitting on hold since you won't make some relatively minor changes for whatever reason. Just try to remove information about all of the coaches (it comes across weird, see above for explanation) and see how it reads. Instead of debating about it you could also take my other advice and mention it at the college football project. Who knows... maybe the reviewing editor and I are full of crap? Repeating three different things is really annoying when trying to assist you.Cptnono (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikehold: I made a mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. I stand by my comments on that third paragraph but maybe someone more familiar with college ball articles will have some thoughts that will help. I mentioned it above and over there, this already is better than other team articles I have seen. A concern with the lead is important but I honestly don't know if Westy should prevent the promotion (the lead is incredibly important but the overall article is more than satisfactory). Nice work and you should consider exceeding GA when this is complete through some peer review.Cptnono (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think its a very well written article. I also enjoyed your sporadic, yet appropriate, quotes from former players. I just have a few small suggestions and I would also like to hear from other reviewers on my suggestions as some other reviewer may not agree.

I think the Bobby Ross era section may be a bit too long. It only covers five seasons yet is one of the longer history sections.
"Reich later repeated the feat…" —I think this sentence can go as it is irrelevent to the topic.
I'm not a fan of the section header Dark years as I feel it is a bit too subjective.
I am also concerned about the length of the Friedgen era section. I fear as the season's progress, this section will continue to grow. It is already the longest section and after another season or two, it will definitely be too long. Might want to consider summarizing this a bit more, especially if you go for FA.
Make sure you are using non-breaking spaces in accordance with WP:NBSP.

That's all I've got. Again, a well-written article.↔NMajdan•talk 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick through looking for where to put the non-breaking spaces and didn't see any. Did I miss something?

You're using hyphens in a lot of compound adjectives and adverbs where I would normally use non-breaking spaces (i.e. "300-pound bronze replica"). I don't think this is necessarily incorrect but it might be something to verify before you go for FA. I fixed two instances that I found. There might be more, there might not.↔NMajdan•talk 23:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a couple names of the coaches. This is an article about the team and not the coaches. Maybe these few bytes will make it read better.
Bobby Ross era had alot going on so I don't know what, if anything, to cut. I don't think this should prevent GA but it could possible be improved
The source thought the Reich thing was noteworthy. I'm on the fence and don't care if the line stays or goes.
Dark years is cute but it is subjective. I think it sums it up well but see your point. Any alternatives?
Friedgen era suffers from RECENTISM. So many news sources online makes a year by year summary possible. How should this be fixed?
I don't think the non-breaking on hyphens is required but could be wrong. I don't think this should prevent romotion since it is required for "comprehension" which isn't a concern at this time. Regardless, 5 minutes of work will take care of it and this could be done for the sake of making the article that much better..Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting with JRA_WestyQld2, I agree this article should be passed. Although I would like to see if the "Friedgen era" subsection could be trimmed slightly to give it less weight this shouldn't prevent it from going through with the recent changed in place. I also wanted to mention that there is plenty of criticism on this review page. It should be noted that these things are eclipsed by the detailed and informative text. It is clear that a good amount of time went into this article.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]