Talk:1920 Buffalo All-Americans season/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I've always thought that links in the embolden introduction were frowned upon, but I can't seem to find anything in the MOS about it. Stylistically, I'd prefer it if the links weren't there though.
 * Okay, I moved the links into the infobox.
 * You need to mention very early on that this article is about (American) football.
 * Added something in the first sentence.
 * In the first sentence and a half, the article uses the word "season" four times; it would be best to reword this to cut some of these out.
 * I cut one out and changed another.
 * A note is necessary to explain the "9–1–1" notation: a layperson would be unlikely to understand what this means.
 * I reworded it, and added an abbreviation afterwards. Let me know how that works out.
 * This might be a language variation thing, but "The All-Americans reshaped itself.." sounds odd to me: All-Americans is plural, but "itself" is singular. If it were written "Buffalo reshaped itself.." I could understand that, but written like this jars for me. Similarly, later in the lead: "..and was undefeated against.." For me would be better as "..and were undefeated against.."
 * Alright, I changed it.
 * In the lead and the Game summaries section, you link to West Buffalo, but in the Schedule table, you link to the red West Buffalo (football). Be consistent on the target.
 * Missed that, fixed.
 * Based on the article winning percentage, the Akron Pros would only have a winning percentage of 0.772. I understand that it was probably calculated differently, but as that seems to be the case, I think it needs a referenced note to explain that.
 * I explain later during the post season section, but if you want me to add something about it in the lead, then I can.
 * "Sportswriter Bruce Copeland.." This would be more encyclopaedic language as: "The sportswriter Bruce Copeland.."
 * Okie dokie.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Offseason
 * "The Buffalo All-Americans, who were named the Buffalo Prospects, finished 9–1–1 in their 1919 season in the NYPFL." I don't like the wording of this season at all. Perhaps try something like: "In the 1919 season, the franchise was named the Buffalo Prospects, and finished with a 9–1–1 in the NYPFL."
 * Alright, fixed.
 * It might be worth naming the two players who stayed, assuming you have that information.
 * I only have the players' last names, would you want me to add them or omit it?
 * In that case I'll leave it up to you. Are they not listed in the roster later in the article then?  Harrias  talk 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the names and added them.
 * In this section, you say the name has changed to the "American Professional Football Association", which makes sense with the acronym APFA, but in the lead, you use American Professional Football League (APFA).
 * Yeah, mistake from me. Changed the former to League.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Game summaries
 * I don't like the use of WB, BB, TB etc for the player's positions in prose sections of the article. I think such acronyms/abbreviations are fine in tables with a key, but in the prose I would prefer to see these written out in full please.
 * I think I got them all.
 * Still some examples of these: I would change them myself, but I don't know what they are! Week 6 and Week 7 summaries still use some. Also, should runningback be two words like at the article itself?  Harrias talk 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I fixed them.
 * "..ran for an early score in the first quarter." This needs some more explanation: as someone who knows little about American football, I don't really know what this means at all.
 * Reworded.
 * Link jargon terms on their first use: touchdown, "shut out", "rushing touchdown", "punt" are a few examples I came across, but there are probably more.
 * I think I got them all.
 * All-Bufalo is hyphenated everywhere except the result table.
 * Fixed.
 * "In fact, this was the Olympics' one of only two away games for its season." Perhaps rephrase this as: "In fact, this was one of only two away games for the Olympics."
 * Changed.
 * "For the All-Americans next game.." You need an apostrophe after All-Americans.
 * Added.
 * "Coming into this game, the Maroons did not score a point the entire season.." Sounds a bit odd tense-wise. Perhaps try: "Coming into the game, the Maroons had not scored a point for the entire season.."
 * Fixed.
 * "Six thousand people were in attendance of the.." Should this be "for the.." or is this a language variation?
 * Not sure, but I changed it to 'for.'
 * "In the first quarter, Anderson returned a 40-yard and a 50-yard punt for a touchdown." Was there one touchdown, or two? This need more clarity.
 * It was two, changed the sentence a bit.
 * "Anderson scored the final two touchdowns of the game. In the third and the fourth quarter, he scored a rushing touchdown." Similar to above, this needs further clarity.
 * fixed.
 * "The Jeffersons' first drive resulted a turnover on downs.[3]" Why is this the third sentence and then repeated again at the end of the section? Presumably just an accidental extra bit?
 * Hm. Not sure how that got there. Removed.
 * "This game would serve as the only loss, and the only game when the Lumberjacks failed to score a point." This might be clearer as: "This game was the Lumberjacks only loss of the season, and the only game in which they failed to score a point."
 * Alright, fixed.
 * "Under 9,000 fans, .." Meaning "fewer than"? Or presumably meaning that's how many fans were in attendance? At any rate, it needs to made clearer which it is.
 * I meant that that's how many fans were in attendance. I changed the sentence.
 * "At the end of the first quarter, the game near-even; the score was 7–6, Panhandles." Not keen on this sentence: it sounds too journalistic and not encyclopaedic enough.
 * Changed.
 * "After that, the game "proved disastrous" to the Panhandles." According to who? You need to say who made that claim inline in the article.
 * Added who said it.
 * "The final score was 43–7; the only score was a receiving touchdown from Homer Ruh." Is that the only score for the Panhandles?
 * Yeah, I fixed it.
 * "..and the Panhandles' offense allowed a safety." What does this mean?
 * Added the wikilink to show.
 * "Hall-of-Famer Jim Thorpe started the game.." Was in the hall of fame at the time? If not, then it should be rephrased "Jim Thorpe, who was later inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, .." You also need to make it clear who he played for.
 * Done.
 * "..Bulldogs' Al Feeney. Feeney never.." Close repetition of Feeney should be avoided.
 * I changed it to 'He.'

I've reviewed to the end of Week 9: vs. Canton Bulldogs and will continue later. Feel free to address the points above in the mean time. If you have any queries, please ping me on my talk page.  Harrias  talk 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I've got to head off to work in a few minutes, but I'll make a note to complete the review this evening.  Harrias  talk 07:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The following week, the All-Americans played their second game against the All-Americans, winning 7–3." Presumably one of these should say "Bulldogs"?
 * Oops. Fixed.
 * I don't really understand why a low fan turnout meant that Bob Nash was sold: was it because the Akron Pros would have struggled financially otherwise? Some clarification might be of benefit if possible.
 * Yeah, that's why. Added some info about it.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Post-season
 * "a meeting was held to determine the 1920 NFL Champions." Surely given the league name at the time, it was to decide the APFA champions? NFL is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole article.
 * Correct. Changed.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * References
 * Refs #9, #10, #28, #32, #33 are missing access dates.
 * Added access dates.
 * Be consistent in whether you link newspapers and publishers: for example Ref #9 doesn't link The New York Times, but #33 does.
 * Fixed.
 * What makes The Pro Football Archives a reliable source?
 * The Pro Football Archives was work done by the Pro Football Researchers Association. It's publisher, Maher Sports Media, is led by Tod Maher. He is the 2001 recipient of the Ralph Hay Award for career achievement in professional football research. He is also a three-time winner of the Nelson Ross Award for his books The World Football Encyclopedia, The Pro Football Encyclopedia and Minor League Football: 1960-1985. The writers of the website have written several books, listed here.

I think that is everything. Once you've responded to these, I'll give the article one more look over, and I should think it'll pass without any trouble.  Harrias  talk 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses: note that I replied to a few further up, so they have some outstanding issues.  Harrias  talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)