Talk:1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team/GA2

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

Reviewer: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this tonight. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * Note 1 doesn't have a citation.
 * Note 2 doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic. "It seems" should be avoided; say what the sources state and no more. A "conference win" in this time period isn't as well-defined as it is today, so just being clear how you come to the number (and what sources support it) is enough. Please make it more clear in the note that the number you're citing includes Sewanee.
 * Rephrase first sentence of second paragraph to avoid beginning it with a year/number. It's not grammatically incorrect, but it is poor style.
 * Cite 2 needs to be marked closed access per the style you've chosen for citations.
 * In the second paragraph, it needs to be clarified over what time period Vanderbilt was considered the best team in the South. I assume you're comparing them only to other teams in the season, but this is unclear.
 * In the third paragraph, I don't believe "All-America" needs to be italicized. If it does, that should be consistent across the two usages of the term.
 * Billy Evans National Honor Roll --> Billy Evans' National Honor Roll
 * The two sentences regarding Billy Evans' honor rolls are a bit repetitive. Could this be condensed into one sentence that presents both pieces of information?

Before the season

 * Note 3 can probably be part of the text itself. It's a particularly relevant bit of background to this season.
 * First paragraph, second sentence doesn't follow from the source. The headline states that they chose the team from 23 candidates, not that they filled 23 roster spots. Note that more than 23 players eventually participated according to later information in the article, so be careful not to word in a way that doesn't create a contradiction.
 * Please rephrase Note 4 so it isn't a sentence fragment.
 * The latter portion of the first paragraph could use a copyedit, as it uses "also" quite a bit and has repetitive sentence structure.
 * Start of second paragraph "including captain Jess Neely Captain" is likely a typo.
 * Note 5 is more a bit of trivia than anything. It probably doesn't belong in the article, but the information should be included in Neely's article.
 * "replacement quarterback Alvin Bell" is unclear to me. Who was he replacing and when? Do you just mean back-up? This could be more clear.
 * Extraneous space before the period in the area of the 21st cite.
 * The final sentence of paragraph two is not supported by the source. It's probably false. Based on what I'm seeing, Zerfoss was completing a medical degree before joining the coaching staff. He hadn't been with Kentucky since 1914 according to his article.
 * First two sentences of third paragraph are a bit repetitive. Consider replacing the repetitive use of the team names with "both teams" or similar in the second sentence. You could also possibly merge the two sentences.
 * "Michigan, which also had a strong squad" – the strong squad bit is probably redundant. The fact that they were favored to win the west speaks for itself.
 * If "try for a point" is an accepted term (versus a quote), you can remove the first cite of cite 24. If the whole paragraph is sourced to that one cite, it can just go at the end.

Schedule
No comments.

Week 1

 * What does "broken fields" mean?
 * Why specifically against Michigan? (third paragraph)
 * Need a cite on the "highlight" for Normal. Additionally, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek to call this a highlight. Typically, getting a single first down isn't exactly cause to brag. Might want to reword this to present it in a light more typical of only recording one first down in a game.

Week 2

 * "Ineffective" should be changed to "generally ineffective" or similar; it's difficult to call them wholly ineffective when they ripped off a 70-yard run.
 * Add a comma before "sparking the offense".
 * Were the two drives consecutive? If yes, note this to indicate that this was a bit of a run. If no, why are we combining them together?
 * Was the quarterback position more flexible back then? By modern standards, this would be an extraordinary game that warrants coaching response if they had to swap their quarterbacks this much and ultimately switch to a halfback. Was there any such coaching response?

Week 3

 * Remove note 7. It may belong in the game article, but per WP:Summary style, it doesn't belong here. Neither fact is relevant to the 1922 Vanderbilt season.
 * Can you obtain a more specific source for the term "underdog"? This isn't clearly supported by the inline cite, but I suspect you could find such sourcing. We have to be careful to only use such terms when they're clearly supported by sources, since it's easy to put editorial spin on games like these.
 * Should the circumstances of the Commodores being unhealthy be included either in Week 3 or an earlier week?
 * The last sentence of paragraph three is a tad awkward. "Addendum" is cumbersome in this context. Could you tweak this a bit?

Week 4

 * This is liable to annoy, but I'm going to decline to review this for now because this so obviously doesn't meet WP:Summary style, which speaks to criteria 3b. Please condense this. If the game was notable, you may consider splitting out what's currently written into its own article. Eleven paragraphs on a single game is excessive for a season article, though. Once this is cut down to a reasonable size, I will review it in more detail.

Week 5

 * What exactly does featureless match mean?
 * "do-it-all" is easier a quote that needs to be attributed and placed in quotation marks or should be re-worded. It's not particularly neutral if not a quote.
 * Ref 91 doesn't work, please see if you can find a working link/archive.
 * "The Commodores were held scoreless in the first quarter." can be cut for brevity, as the next sentence mentions that the first score wasn't until the second quarter.
 * Please add a cite to the end of paragraph 2. It ends with several sentences with specific facts but no cite.

Week 6

 * Is the fact that the Commodores were playing in a new stadium from the other team really that noteworthy? The new stadium shouldn't affect them all that much, so I struggle to see how this passes beyond trivia. I could maybe be convinced on this, but I'm skeptical.
 * Second paragraph, third sentence: "but" should be changed to "and", as the slight favorite directly follows from what was said before.
 * Second paragraph, last sentence: Needs to be reworded. The "so many writers" bit sounds awkward, and I'm not sure what grammatical construction you're going for. Cite needed for this sentence.
 * Third paragraph: "Charged" is a bit of a non-neutral/puffery type term. Please re-word.

Week 7

 * Is both teams supposedly being confident really worth including? That sounds like press release type nonsense that coaches spout off to get their players going.
 * "Snuffed out" - please reword, not encyclopedic.
 * "Freddie Meiers was the star of the contest." This sentence comes out of nowhere. It should probably be toward the end of the section when summarizing the result or before you start recounting the play-by-play. Having it in the middle seems odd.
 * "got his feet from behind" --> "tackled his feet from behind"

Week 8

 * Needs trimming before I review it, similar to Week 4. Eleven paragraphs is too much for one game.

Week 9

 * I don't see "oldest rival" supported in the source.
 * Please reword the last sentence of paragraph 1 to make clear it was the largest attendance at that time. I'm sure new records have been set since then.
 * Is the phrase "kicked goal" normal in older football games? It lacks an article. I would usually expect to see "kicked a field goal" or at least "kicked a goal" in modern times.
 * The sentence with the phrase "On fourth down Sewanee" needs a comma between down and Sewanee.
 * Per oldest rival, the source title says first rival, and dates the rivalry to 1891. Cake  (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-season

 * Is this header appropriate? There was no post-season as far as I can tell, unless I'm misreading things. This is more of a "legacy" section. Thoughts?
 * Hm. There was no bowl season other than the Rose Bowl, but there was still some post-season discussion of the season in the newspapers, for All-America or All-Southern, for championships, next year's schedule, and so forth. The first sentence could just as well go in a legacy section, but the rest seems to go with the immediate postseason discussion. Even the first sentence is to say the team's legacy was noticed early on. Cake  (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * You can probably remove the game start times from the boxes that include them. That's borderline stats table information. It's definitely not necessary in a complete summary of the season.

Response

 * Thank you very much for this Rob. Going over it for the first time. Some comments:
 * I am a bit curious myself what "broken fields" mean, but it is a crucial element of the game so long ago. Everett Strupper is called the greatest broken field runner there ever was (for Southerners, anyway). I believe it means in the open field, rather than with players blocking for you. It is one of those terms I've thought about adding to wikipedia. Don't want to make it just a sporting dictionary, but there are several biographies and such where one is going to wonder what is e. g. a broken-field.
 * Because Michigan was known to be the season's toughest game even at week one, I suppose.
 * Short answer: It's not odd at all to have your "emergency quarterback" be a halfback. Long answer: The whole backfield or set of running backs was a lot more interchangeable in those days. A quarterback was picked from the pool of halfbacks and fullbacks. Quarterbacks were smallest and fullbacks were biggest. The quarterback was the "field general" if you like while the halfbacks were the ones who could pass the ball (like Neely, and unlike today) and the fullbacks could punt; but in general the main duty of carrying the ball overlapped and it was simply a matter of where you lined up in the formation. If you look at the page of the year before, you can see a quarterback/halfback lined up at fullback. With Rountree in particular, they spent a short time trying to make him a quarterback. Cake  (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clarifies quite a few things. I'll be continuing this review throughout the week; I try to be detailed in my comments, so it may take a bit. Feel free to respond to what's here in the meantime. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I found it hard to decide what to cut from the Texas and Georgia games, but you're right. Trimmed some from the Texas game.
 * I'm not sure any source says "underdog", but several attest to Michigan as clear favorites.
 * The injuries were after the first two games and definitely referenced as part of the build-up to the Michigan game, rather than plaguing them all season or before it.
 * Should I really remove the note that says Bill Neely was captain of the 1910 team? 1910 and 1922 are both big years, so it seems a connection to note. Cake  (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very sorry for the delays here; I've gotten quite busy in real life unexpectedly. I'll get back to this in the near future. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally done with this review. Again, sorry for the massive delays, . Real life went crazy for a while there. Please address the outstanding things above. Ideally, I'd appreciate if you responded to each comment (even if just to say "done") in-line with my review to make it easy for me to re-review when you've made your changes. Ping me when you need me to take another look. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done all of them. The Sewanee game could probably be trimmed down some too. I think "kicked goal" is said normally, but I changed it anyway for clarity's sake.   Cake  (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Round 2
Some of these are duplicated from above recommendations that haven't been addressed. If you think they shouldn't be adopted, happy to discuss.


 * Please alter note 2 to clearly indicate whether the Sewanee win is being counted in your tally of conference wins, since you've stated it can be either way.
 * Cite 2 should be marked closed access.
 * The first appearance of cite 18 can be removed. The cite at the end of the paragraph covers it.
 * I believe you missed the Week 1 section above when working through my comments; the concerns weren't addressed.
 * Need a cite for Normal's best play.
 * Week 4 needs to be cut down more. A few suggestions on what to cut: We don't need to know about which radio station broadcast the game (paragraph 1). Paragraphs 4 and 5 can be both condensed greatly (cut out detail about fruitless drives) and combined. Combine paragraphs 8 and 9. Generally, try to cut out poetic language and focus on the essentials of the game.
 * What exactly does featureless match mean? (Week 5)
 * Week 8 needs some cuts. Cut paragraph 2 entirely as overly detailed/not needed in a summary style article. Paragraph 3 needs a copy-edit, as it's a bit rambling. "In 1922, Vanderbilt was acknowledged as having returned to its full form." can be cut. Paragraph 4, sentence 3 needs rewording due to confusing prose. Cut "Georgia fans were surprised to see Vanderbilt try an unusual play." (unnecessary). Paragraphs 8 and 9 should be combined, since paragraph 9 is short.

Anything I haven't commented on in this section doesn't need further changes as far as I can tell. There were a few comments you questioned above where I agreed with your responses, so don't worry about going back and fixing those things. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, especially for the suggestions on what to cut. I'm not sure I missed more about week one than the Delay citation, as I responded about broken fields and why I mentioned Michigan in week one. A featureless match is a boring game - one without features. Cake  (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Was this ready for another pass from me? ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be. Cake  (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. My inclination is to want more cuts to Week 4, but I think the article now meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. This doesn't involve the GA criteria, but I encourage you to remove the via Newspapers.com bits from all references per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT; you don't need to list the database you used to access an article. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)