Talk:1920 Rock Island Independents season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 10:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in the process of reviewing this article. I'll make sure the review is posted in the next day or two. - Shudde  talk 10:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll add problems or questions I have regarding the article first, then I'll specifically address each of the specific Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Bear with me, I'll try and get through everything as quickly as I can. Once I've finished commenting, I usually allow a week to address the comments, however I'm happy to extend that within reason:

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll start with 1920 Rock Island Independents season, and do the lead last. Should this section maybe be named Background? Offseason may be appropriate, but surely background is a little more encompassing, and I think may be better considering the section does discuss the formation of a new league?
 * That makes sense. I changed it.
 * The first sentence concerns me, the references do not refer to a "mythical USA Championship" (they do mention "National Championship") — where does this name come from? The other point is the use of the term "mythical" — again neither reference uses that term. You might be better to be more explicit regarding this, rather than describing it as mythical; what was mythical about it?
 * I edited it, so it fit the references. To the word mythical, there was no set leagues in 1919, so when the RII finished their season, they called themselves "champions".17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of the references is that they claimed the national championship, rather than being awarded it (or 'winning' it) — maybe this should be clarified, even if just by way of a footnote. - Shudde  talk 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * "Did not change much"? Could you be more specific? Is there a reason that Keith Dooley's inclusion is notable?
 * I'm not really sure what to say. The owner and the coach stayed the same, and the only addition, according the references I could find was Dooley (who I added a little bit more about).
 * This is the problem with some of these references (being close to primary rather than secondary); the reason that Doodley was mentioned is because that is the only player mentioned in the sources you have found. Is there any evidence that the roster did not change much other than the fact that you haven't found mention of any other roster changes? - Shudde  talk 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a bunch more info, based on the 1919 and 1920 rosters.
 * Cool, I would consider those quite a few changes btw! - Shudde  talk 06:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "After the 1919 season, representatives of four Ohio League, a professional football league, teams—the Canton Bulldogs, the Cleveland Tigers, the Dayton Triangles, and the Akron Pros—called a meeting on August 20, 1920 to discuss the formation of a new league." — that sentence reads very badly, and should be rewritten. Also, did they call the meeting and other team representatives attend, or was it just those four? The wording of the sentence doesn't make this clear.
 * It was just these four members. I reworded the sentence, too.
 * I altered this sentence a little. Hope that is ok. - Shudde  talk 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 05:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 05:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 08:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I'll add the rest of my comments soon. - Shudde  talk 10:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 08:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Images:
 * "Team representatives changed the league's name slightly to the American Professional Football Association and elected officers, installing Jim Thorpe as president" - this is a run-on sentence.
 * How?
 * See Run-on sentence
 * But it's not though. The basic sentence is "representatives changed and elected".
 * I don't think we're on the same page here. - Shudde  talk 06:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Schedule"? Is this the correct term, maybe in American English it is different, but my understanding is that it refers to a future series of events. Therefore including scores etc wouldn't happen. Maybe I'm wrong on this?
 * Yeah, this is how it is in American English. ESPN has a link to schedule, where it shows the scores, times, etc.
 * I think kick-off times should be removed here. I just don't think it adds anything important, and clearly there is only data from two matches. Also the two references listed don't match regarding the series, can you explain this?
 * Took out the kickoff time column. Teams back in the early days were called my many names. So, depending of which source is cited, the names could be different.
 * My question is that both those sources also list the match in January 1921. Even though that isn't 1920; it's still considered part of the same season is it not? - Shudde  talk 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The National Football League does not consider that game as an official game in the standings.
 * That it is not a part of the APFA Standings is fine, however the article is about the season, not just the APFA season which is one reason I asked. I think it may warrant inclusion, but should be made clear that it did not contribute to the APFA standings. - Shudde  talk 06:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worried there is not much information regarding the team, coaches, management in here. Surely there is more two say than the once sentence about the roster not changing much? This should be expanded considerably I believe.
 * Game summaries:
 * "the first game in the history of the league" - is there a reference for this?
 * Added reference.
 * So basically they only scored "rushing touchdowns"? Maybe consider rewriting a little bit, seems needlessly repetitive. Also I think rushing touchdown, or at least touchdown should be wikilinked to an appropriate article. Not all readers will be familiar with the term.
 * Fixed the sentences a bit.
 * "Rock Island Independents played against the Muncie Flyers after their victory. It is considered to be one of the first games played with two APFA teams.[19] Since kickoff times were not standardized, it is unknown if the Muncie–Rock Island or Columbus–Dayton game is the first game." — this just doesn't read that well; consider rewording.
 * I reworded it a bit. Not sure how else to change it, really.
 * " In the second quarter, Ursella scored kicked a 25-yard field goal, and Wyman scored from an 86-yard kickoff return. In the third quarter, Sid Nichols had a 5-yard rushing touchdown, and Waddy Kuehl scored 7-yard rushing touchdown, en route to a final score of the game was 45–0." - English
 * Believe I fixed it.
 * "This game was the only one that counted in the Flyers' standing for the entire 1920 season." - towards not in
 * Fixed.
 * You use a lot of jargon in this article. If you're going to do so, you should link to an explanation in the first instance of the terms use.
 * I'm going through the article, wikilinking things. See if there was any I missed or some that should be removed, etc.
 * "Lastly, Ed Healey was kicked in the face needed five stitches in the cheek" - English
 * Fixed.
 * "In week 4, the Independents played again the Decatur Staleys." - English
 * Fixed.
 * There are a lot of problems with English in this article. A simple copy-edit would probably address most of them. Simple things like the examples listed above. Hopefully it has been a while since you've had a read through the article, it is time to read through again and fix these errors. I'm going to stop listing them, but please check through it carefully.
 * I am in the middle of c/e'ing the article.
 * You use yards throughout the article. Some, for example maybe once every section, should be converted to metres with the conversion template (maybe not every time the unit is used though). The use of yards outside the US is becoming rarer and rarer — readers may be unfamiliar with it.
 * Hey, I see you've attempted to addressed this which is good. However I think it's going to be a case of having the conversion template no more or less than necessary. You may have gone from one extreme to another! I'm not sure what the best solution is. - Shudde  talk 01:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not either. The MOS says it should be on all units, and that doesn't seem like a bad idea. I'm not sure though, and I'm willing to compromise.
 * The MoS wins, so include it in all cases. - Shudde  talk 06:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Thorns' players decided to have 10 minute quarters." - is this unusual? There is not information regarding rules; how did this work? Did they agree on them on the day, did the home side dictate?
 * Why did they play two matches in one week? Also be careful, you use the term "week eight", but throughout the article you use "week x" where x is the numberal rather than word.
 * "Ties" - make sure this is wikilinked in the first instance. Tie can also mean fixture or match, and it may confuse some readers.
 * Linked.
 * Roster — You use letters following some of the players. I'm guessing (which is half the problem) that these are describing their positions. Why do only some of the players have this? If they are positions I think two things need to be added; either a footnote, clearly saying what they are, and with possible a wiki-link to an appropriate article about each position.
 * You're correct. I wikilinked them upon first occasion.
 * I still think this roster table is pretty confusing. Maybe at the bottom have "LH - Left Tackle; RH = Right Tackle" etc

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:RockIslandIndependentsTeamPhoto1919.jpg - Unless took this photo themselves in 1919 I find it hard to believe that it is "own work". It's going to be public domain, but this needs to be sorted.
 * Fixed.
 * File:Walterhflanigan.jpg - No source; this is a problem. Again PD but should be sourced.
 * Fixed.
 * See above regarding mythical USA Championship — "Team photograph of the 1919 Rock Island Independents, where the team won the mythical USA Championship." — "when" not "where"
 * Fixed.

References: —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) - Shudde  talk 11:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe have two columns for notes.
 * Okay.
 * How reliable is http://www.rockislandindependents.com ?

Lead - Shudde  talk 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as writing goes, this section needs to be better. "The 1920 Rock Island Independents season was the franchise's inaugural season in the American Professional Football Association (APFA), an American football league, and thirteenth season as a team. " reads poorly. Maybe "The 1920 Rock Island Independents season was the American football franchise's thirteen season, and inaugural season in the American Professional Football Association (APFA)."
 * 'The Independents entered 2010 coming off a nine-win, one-loss, one-tie (9–1–1) record in 1919 as an independent team, which the team proclaimed to be the "Champions of the USA".' Obvious error here; maybe 'The Independents entered 1920 after a 9-1-1 win-loss-tie record in 1919 that the team claimed earned them the title "Champions of the USA".[with citation]'
 * The whole thing needs a rewrite unfortunately. Maybe take into account my comments above. I would consider leaving this until all the other comments have been addressed. It could be expanded a little also, especially regarding the teams record, which encompasses the majority of the article at the moment.

Good article criteria

1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage: 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images Congratulations on the work that's been put into the article. I think it's in a position to fulfil the criteria within a reasonable time-period (was thinking one week, two max). I'm going to place this article on hold. I'll check back in a week. If you want any more feedback/clarification then just ping me on my talk page and I'll try and answer reasonably promptly. - Shudde  talk 11:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some serious concerns here. I think a lot of work needs to be done, most of it simple, but the lead needs to be a lot better. I've tried to give examples where I can.
 * I have serious concerns here as well. I think this is probably the weakest aspect of the article. My main concerns are discussion of the squad and coaches/managers. Some of the match summaries are not more than "x scored a touchdown here" and a run down of the scores after each quarter. I'm a bit on the fence regarding this aspect of the criteria. I think the article could do with some expansion; I mentioned a few things in the comments above — if these are addressed hopefully the coverage will be broad enough.

Additional comments Something I forgot to add when I did my initial review. This influences the broadness of the article. I know that the teams would create their schedules dynamically as the season went on, but there is not information regarding Douglas Park (Rock Island) — for example it was obviously shared with other sports teams. Even more importantly, why did they play all but one of their matches at "Home"? Did other teams use this as their home ground as well, or was this simply a quirky result of the dynamic scheduling? - Shudde  talk 02:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey. I think this article is getting there, and a lot of the problems have been addressed. I'll leave it on hold for another week because things have momentum. Hopefully that is enough time to address everything. - Shudde  talk 09:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been almost three weeks since the article was last edited. If no edits are made this weekend, it may be time to close the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. I posted a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League a couple of days ago asking if anyone else wanted to continue with the nom as is not editing at the moment. I'll give it another couple of days, and if no one takes up the cause then I'll have no choice but to fail it. -  Shudde  talk 02:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There are basically two things which still need to be done for this article to pass. One is that the lead needs to be cleaned up—the language doesn't read particularly well, and could also do with a bit of an expansion. The second is the match in January 1921 which has not been included; considering the short length of the season, I think omitting this means that the article doesn't meet the "broad" criteria. Considering it's relative insignificance, I don't think much needs to be said about it. The article has been on hold for a while, so I'll give it another 3-4 days for these things to be fixed. Otherwise I'll fail it, and it can be renominated once those two things are addressed. - Shudde  talk 04:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've given it a few days. It's a reluctant fail. There is very little that needs to be done, so if the article gets improved and renominated in the future, ping me on my talk page and unless I'm bogged down, I'll try and find the time to review it. Good luck. - Shudde  talk 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)