Talk:1920 Canton Bulldogs season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning a review of this article. N.B.: Since this is the first time I've attempted a GA review, I intend to ask for a second opinion, which means the process will likely take a bit longer than usual.--Batard0 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 13:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I appreciate it for taking time out to review the article.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The article's headed in the right direction, but it needs some work – especially on the quality of the prose and style considerations – before it meets GA criteria.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The quality of the prose could be better. Here are some suggestions:
 * Eliminate use of the passive voice wherever possible. There are numerous passive constructions, such as "a meeting ... was held," "the name ... was chosen," "officers of the league were elected," "the game was canceled" and so forth. I'm not suggesting you should turn every single passive construction into an active one: sometimes the passive voice is more efficient. But the passive often leaves it unclear who is doing what. "The owners met to choose the name of the league and vote on a player salary cap" is better than "A meeting was held to decide on the league's name and vote on a salary cap." This should be fairly easy to fix.
 * I've done this.--Batard0 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessarily a critique that falls under the scope of a GA review, but I'd suggest standardizing the style with which scores are reported. In most cases scores are formatted with a "to," as in "48 to 0," while sometimes they're formatted like "48–0." The standard across most good and featured football articles appears to be two numbers joined with an en dash; I'd recommend using the same style here.
 * Think I got them all.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A word is missing in the lead. It says the Bulldogs "entered the season coming off a 9–0–1 as Ohio League champions." Is it a 9–0–1 record? A 9–0–1 performance?
 * Added "performance".

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are word-choice errors in several places. "The Bulldogs' offense was so dominate they were only stopped on downs one time" should be "The Bulldogs' offense was so dominant they were only stopped on downs one time," or, better yet, simply: "The Bulldogs' offense was stopped on downs just once." I'd also note here that it's unclear to me what "stopped on downs" means. That they were forced to punt the ball, or that they failed to convert a fourth down? I could be mistaken, but I think the usual meaning is the latter; if that's so, is it noteworthy that the offense failed to convert a fourth down only once? I'd suggest either clarifying or deleting this.
 * Clarified it.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the following sentence: "For the second and third quarter, the Bulldogs did not try to score, as they were 'content to perfect team play.'" How, specifically, did the team not try to score? Were second-string players sent in? Did they voluntarily give possession to the opponents because the score was so lopsided? The phrase "content to perfect team play" I think raises more questions than it answers. How does a team perfect its team play while trying not to score? Or is "perfect" here an adjective and not the infinitive? Were they content with their perfect play? I would suggest deleting this sentence, unless you can clarify it with a bit more context.
 * I changed to something else.
 * I've made some further tweaks to try to make it clearer.--Batard0 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The following sentence is also problematic: "During the meeting, the name of American Professional Football Association was chosen; officers of the league were elected with Jim Thorpe as president; the trophy that would be awarded to the league champions; as well as other things." First, it's unclear what the people at the meeting decided about the trophy - or if they decided anything at all about it. Did they choose the name of the trophy? Did they choose its design? Second, the "as well as other things" at the end is burdensome reading. I would recommend deleting that. I would also suggest changing the sentence to something like: "At the meeting, team representatives chose the league's name and elected officers, installing Jim Thorpe as president." The part about the trophy is probably tangential.
 * Changed it to what you recommended.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The preceding sentence is confusing: "The Buffalo All-Americans and Rochester Jeffersons could not attend the meeting, but sent letters to be in the league." What did the letters say? Did they indicate their desire to be in the league? Did they ask to be in the league? Were they contractually binding? I'd suggest perhaps changing it to "Representatives of the Buffalo All-Americans and Rochester Jeffersons could not attend the meeting, but sent letters [to whom?] asking to be included in the league," if in fact that's what happened.
 * Okay. Changed the sentence.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the section on the first game, we have: "The Youngstown Vindicator claimed the Bulldogs were 'never in danger'." This isn't really a claim; it's a basic fact given that the team won 48-0. I'd recommend simply saying the Bulldogs were never in danger, and then citing the source.
 * Okay.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a quibble, but I'd recommend changing the second sentence in the first game summary to read, "The Bulldogs scored 34 points in the first quarter as Joe Guyon rushed for three touchdowns, ..." and so on. The colon in the existing text implies that you're giving a comprehensive account of the scoring, when it's evident that they likely missed an extra point after one score or in some other way failed to get 35 points out of five touchdowns.
 * Fixed it.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd avoid starting the following sentence with "However," given the confusion this can cause with constructions like, "However you slice it." So: "In the fourth quarter, however, Bunny Corcoran caught a 35-yard touchdown pass ..."
 * Never thought of it that way. Changed.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the final sentence of that summary is overly verbose. It can be: "The final score was 48–0." Putting "offensive star" in quotes (referring to Guyon) implies that somebody named him the offensive star. I'd suggest either getting rid of that or just saying so matter-of-factly.
 * Alright. Fixed both.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the second game summary, I'd suggest eliminating all in-text attributions to newspaper articles about the game and simply describing the game. Such attribution might be necessary if these were columns, opinion pieces and so forth, but they're straightforward news stories. Readers can refer to the references if they want to see the source. This should help clarify the language and avoid excessive quotations. The same applies to descriptions of all following games.
 * I think I changed them all. It does sound better, too.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also in the second game summary, we say: "In the second quarter, the Hendron scored." The "the" should be deleted. And a Johnny Hendren is mentioned earlier; his last name is spelled differently. These should be fixed.:
 * Fixed both.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence, "The final score of the game was a 48 to 0 victory for the Bulldogs" is verbose. "The final score was 48–0" suffices.
 * Makes sense. Changed.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the following year's description, we say "Under 7,000 fans, the Bulldogs won 7 to 0." This should probably be "The Bulldogs won 7–0 before a crowd of 7,000 people." or "before 7,000 fans." or "with 7,000 people in attendance."
 * Fixed.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The players' positions generally aren't included in the text, and don't appear in the article until the "Roster" section. It would be nice to have some kind of idea of which positions they play on first reference. I.e. "center Joe Smith" and "quarterback Jack Daniels."
 * Got most of them.


 * I could point to further issues, but I'll leave this for now and come back to it if necessary. In general, I'd suggest taking a hard look at the prose and sentence structure. It's not bad, but could use some improving per the suggestions above.


 * This is getting much better. Well done. For the sake of efficiency, I'm going to go in myself and make some further changes to the prose to improve clarity and flow. If you think these changes aren't good, feel free to revert them. I think that'll be a better way forward, since it'll probably take me more time to list everything here than just to edit the article.


 * I've made a number of edits, and I think the prose is pretty good. I may have inadvertently introduced factual errors, though, so please check it out.--Batard0 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The style also needs a bit of work.
 * The lead section should establish the context and significance of the subject, per the MoS. This lead could do a better job of that. Why is the 1920 Canton Bulldogs season important, either relative to other Canton Bulldogs seasons or the 1920 seasons of other teams in the league? The primary element establishing significance is there: that it was the team's first season in a new league. But it could use a bit more contextualization and expansion. How does Jim Thorpe figure in the season?
 * I have expanded the lead quite a bit. Is there something I'm missing, should add, or should remove?
 * This is good. I've made some further amendments; best to look at them.--Batard0 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hupmobile" in the "Offseason" section should be linked to Hupmobile.
 * Done.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the "Schedule" section, there's a description of what color codings and other annotations mean in the box. I suggest removing this and placing it in a footnote, or else simply taking it out. The table is self explanatory, and other GA season articles have no such description. See 1986 New York Giants season, for example. You may want to keep the "dagger" symbol as a footnote, but it would be ideal if you could incorporate it into the box itself (at the bottom, maybe). I'd also note that the description of the dagger's meaning is confusing: it "means that team was not affiliated with the non-APFA." I think you want to say "not affiliated with the APFA," but I'm leaving it to you.
 * Removed the "non-" part. And I did the description because I know some users can be very picky. I did remove some of the stuff though.
 * What I'd like to see, ideally, is no notes and perhaps a "dagger" somewhere in the box. I'll do it myself, and you can feel free to revert it if you think people are going to be picky about it. I know that your other GA 1920 articles have an in-text description of the table, but I am struggling to find even a single other season article that's rated GA or FA that includes the same sort of thing. I'd also point out that some of the other 1920 GAs have the same "not in the non-APFA" issue, which previous reviewers apparently didn't catch. Might be worth fixing those, too.
 * I've fixed this myself. If you think the previous way is absolutely better, then change it back. I think this is a more efficient way of presenting the schedule, however. Most readers aren't immediately concerned with the source of data on wins and losses. It isn't likely to be questioned.--Batard0 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the "Roster" section. Instead of an introductory sentence, footnote this information.
 * What do you mean by a footnote? I changed it some. Is that what you meant?
 * Could you use the same style of roster box as in 1920 Akron Pros season? When I say footnote, I mean you don't have to say in the text itself where you got the roster information. Readers can refer to the note if they want to know where it came from, but they don't need to be told in the text.--Batard0 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The post-season section could use an expansion. It should into greater detail about what moves the Bulldogs made after the season, and how their performance during the season affected those decisions, presuming this information is available. This should include some of the context around those moves, including, perhaps, what other teams did if they had an effect on the Bulldogs.
 * I expanded to what I knew / could find. If it still requires an expansion, let me know, and I'll hit up the archives.
 * I'm sure it's difficult in some cases to get good information about these teams, given that it was so long ago and pro football wasn't very popular at the time. Does anybody say why Thorpe left the team, or why Cap Edwards was hired? How long had Thorpe been the coach, and what was Edwards' background? Again, I know this info might be impossible to get, but it would help the section.
 * I think it's fine now. I made some changes, which could use checking over.


 * Other than that, the layout looks good.


 * I don't see any problems with typical words to watch, aside from the use of the word "claimed" in the first game description, as described above.
 * There aren't any issues with lists.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * References are there for all the information.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Comprehensive inline citations are included. The PFRA seems a reliable source. Still, I recommend finding book sources, if they exist, instead of relying in some parts on newspaper articles. I believe that's beyond the scope of a GA review, however.
 * C. No original research:
 * I find no evidence of OR here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The article partially addresses the main aspects of the topic, but should draw additional context around those facts. This can be accomplished with an expansion of the lead section.
 * B. Focused:
 * Focus is an issue in the "Offseason" section. A couple of points:
 * The sentence, "In 1919, the Bulldogs won the Ohio League championship, posting a 9–0–1 record" probably doesn't belong in the section about the offseason. The 1919 season presumably is not part of the 1920 offseason. That said, I see it as appropriate if in proper context, i.e. something like "After posting a 9-0-1 record and winning a league title the previous year, the Bulldogs came into the 1920 offseason as heavy favorites to win the APFA." I don't know if this is actually the case, of course.
 * I took out this sentence. It's already in the lead and I don't think it's necessary to repeat.--Batard0 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In any event, I think you should restructure this section. Its focus is on the league and its negotiations, not the Bulldogs' role in those discussions. Since this is an article about the 1920 Bulldogs, the section should include information about 1) What the Bulldogs did in the offseason, if you can get this (player signings, coaching changes, anything else that's relevant) and 2) how the Bulldogs got into the new league. Who was behind the Bulldogs' entry into the league? Why did the team enter the league? Answering those sorts of things would be enormously helpful.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restructured this section a bit. It's worth checking to make sure the facts are correct and mesh with the sources. Also, can we put a sentence at the end of the section about what they agreed to re: the number of games to be played and the number of teams in the league? Maybe something like: "Under the new league structure, eight teams were to play 10 games a season, and the club with the best record was to be awarded the APFA trophy"? (I don't know if these numbers are correct.)--Batard0 (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The crazy thing was the league didn't set any rules like that. I did add a sentence at the end of the section explaining something, though.
 * Looks good. I tweaked it a bit for clarity and flow, but I think it's fine now.--Batard0 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutrality isn't an issue.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * It's stable; there hasn't been much discussion about the article.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are in the public domain.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Pictures are appropriate and captions are ok.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm going to leave this for now, pending revision. I think the article's on its way to GA, but it needs substantial work on conciseness and clarity of prose and on its focus and breadth.
 * This is getting quite close now. I think if the outstanding issues above are addressed it should meet all the criteria.
 * I believe everything's been resolved. I think it meets GA criteria, but am passing it on for a second opinion since this is my first GA review attempt.--Batard0 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate the comments. I will start working on them tomorrow morning. —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 00:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Sounds good to me.--Batard0 (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the good work. I've struck out the areas where I think the issues have been addressed. There are still a few remaining. I'm going to go in there and make some modifications myself, simply to (I hope) make the prose flow a little better. Feel free to revert my changes if you think they're not good decisions; I won't be offended.--Batard0 (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are awesome! Thank you helping out with this!


 * No problem. I think this now meets GA criteria. I'm going to put it in for a second opinion since this is the first one I've done, but I think it'll check out.--Batard0 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's cool with me.

To the editor providing a second opinion: I'd like a quick review of the article and evaluation on GA criteria to confirm that it qualifies. I'm asking because it's my first GA review.--Batard0 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion: The GA review looks good, and everything seems fine. Only issue I saw is a minor one; in references, the work/publisher only needs to be linked on first use, so the extra Youngstown Vindicator links and others can be removed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. I've removed the unnecessary links in the refs myself, as it's a rather minor edit. I'll now pass and list it. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)