Talk:Crab Bowl Classic/GA1

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

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Additional comments are always welcome. The article looks fairly complete except for the lead section which could use some expansion. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well written

 * I'm just curious, but what is the advantage of using city-state? Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It links both the city and state and is faster than writing, for example,  Savannah, Georgia . Strikehold (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

 * Is this article titled correctly? There seems to be another event, the Maryland Crab Bowl.  This article seems to be about the "Crab Bowl Classic".  This site doesn't even use the word "crab".  Neither does this one or this one.  Why isn't the article named Maryland–Navy rivalry like all the other articles in Category:Maryland Terrapins rivalries? Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a new (as of 2008) high school all-star game played in Baltimore called the "Maryland Crab Bowl", but that is somewhat of a moot point as it is probably not considered notable. This game is called the "Crab Bowl" or "Crab Bowl Classic" by event organizers, the media (UMD's Diamondback and also here, The Washington Times, The (Washington) Examiner, and The Baltimore Sun), and fans. "Maryland-Navy rivalry" and other derivations already redirect to this article (but not with an ndash, I'll add those.). That is a somewhat contrived name, however, whereas "Crab Bowl" is actually used by several sources to refer specifically to this game. Other college rivalries that actually have a common name, use it, (e.g. Magnolia Bowl, World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate). I wouldn't oppose moving to Crab Bowl Classic, which redirects here. Strikehold (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of questions, but perhaps you can satisfy them all with just one answer. When was the rivalry named the "Crab Bowl", and why? Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly couldn't tell you when it was first called that. For certain, the 2005 game was referred to as much, but I don't know if or by how much it predates that. As for why it is called that, this is conjecture, but it is certainly due to blue crabs being deeply associated with the state of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay; "bowl", usually used for postseason football games, is also sometimes used for recurring regular season rivalry games, like the Egg Bowl, Iron Bowl, Textile Bowl. Strikehold (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't the link to the 2010 proposed game use the term? Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because the school doesn't use the term (I'm assuming). The media and, I assume the Maryland Stadium Authority, do, however. Similarly, none of the schools involved in the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party or Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate use those terms either — in fact, the former is officially banned, but both are widely used by the media and fans. Thus, the article titles. Strikehold (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But, using poorly sourced nicknames as article titles doesn't exactly adhere to naming conventions. I must say I'm a bit confused.  Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "poorly sourced"? Essentially every newspaper that covers Maryland athletics in the Baltimore-Washington metro area has used that name for the game. Here are more: a second Washington Times reference, a third Washington Times reference, another local newspaper The Sentinel reference. Seemingly, the only reason you question it is because U-Md apparently hasn't used the name itself (the three links you provided), but that is irrelevant as these games are named according to common usage, as per the above examples and WP:NAMING: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." I haven't seen any articles that refer to it as the "Maryland-Navy rivalry" or anything similar, so I think would be a contrived name, whereas the media and event staff actually do use "Crab Bowl Classic" and "Crab Bowl". Strikehold (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. The 2005 game is referred to as the "Crab Bowl Classic".  The sources are clear on that point.  Can you show me other ones?  When you say that you haven't seen any articles that refer to it as the "Maryland-Navy rivalry", I'm wondering if we are reading the same article. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (undent) The articles I mentioned all refer to the game/rivalry specifically as the "Crab Bowl" or "Crab Bowl Classic". Other than that name, most of the article's references don't have a specific name for the game. One of the Times articles mentions the "Maryland-Navy football game" once, but also calls it the "Crab Bowl" twice. None say "Maryland-Navy rivalry" that I see. One of the UMD press releases calls it the "Maryland-Navy Game".
 * Even if it were a new name for the game (which I don't believe is the case), I think it would be the most appropriate title. Obviously, this isn't a reliable source, but for what it's worth: "Actually the Maryland/Navy game when played has always been referred to as the Crab Bowl" . There is no more accurate title; nothing that is used across the board or more frequently in reference to the game. There is no reason to believe (or any source stating) that it will be changed. The next game will also be held at the same stadium run by the Maryland Stadium Authority, who "officially" already referred to it as such. The last game (at the least) was dubbed the "classic", which to me indicates an intent to continue a tradition (e.g. Pigskin Classic, Kickoff Classic). Strikehold (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have 20 games listed. Out of all 20, you have provided references showing that the one game in 2005 was called the "Crab Bowl Classic". And there aren't any references referring to the scheduled game in 2010 with that name.  What am I missing?  I'll admit that I may have missed something so please be patient with me. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, I have no contemporary sources about any games other than the 2005 game. Clearly, it is a lot easier to find information online about a game in 2005 than any games 45 or more years ago. The information in the article is mostly derived from the media retrospectively looking at the series shortly before the 2005 game. Strikehold (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and I see that, which is why I have questioned the current title. Surely you can find just one source that will set my mind at ease?  Otherwise, I will maintain that this article should be called the Maryland-Navy rivalry, but I'm not going to keep pressing you on it.  As you are probably aware, I have asked others to comment. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You say above that the other "Maryland Crab Bowl" isn't notable, but all search results indicate that it is. It is described as "Maryland's only statewide high school football all star game" featuring "the best senior all stars from public and private schools in the state of Maryland."  And there are more news stories and links to it than this Crab Bowl.  I think we have a problem.  I don't understand why this article isn't titled Maryland-Navy rivalry. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I said it "is probably not considered notable", but really it is irrelevant. (1) High school football games, as a general rule, are not unless they have some outstanding claim for notability (like the English/Latin rivalry). I don't believe that that one does; it's just a regional all-star game like probably hundreds of others around the country. (2) If it is in fact notable, the title of the game is different. (3) If it wasn't and it ever happened to get an article, a disambiguation page and/or hatnote would be used. Sorry, but I'm not sure what it is you don't understand; I explained my rationale to the best of my ability. If you mean that you just disagree, that's fine, and we can hear other opinions on the matter. Strikehold (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only going on the information you've provided in the article; When I read an article, that's all I can go on. I did a little research on the side to try and find out more about the "Crab Bowl", but I found absolutely nothing except for the "Maryland Crab Bowl", which does not concern this topic.  This article looks pretty good so far.  I'm just concerned about the title. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * No issues to report at this time. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * Looks good. Everything but the helmet icons can be moved to Commons. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead section is too short. Please expand it to include significant highlights in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead and believe it is a better summary of the article now. Strikehold (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement; I added a paragraph break. If you don't like it please move it around the way you prefer it. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * first played in 1905.
 * First played...together, or against each other? Or was this the first time each team played football?  Can you be specific here? Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Strikehold (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * with incidents by players and supporters
 * What kind of incidents? Controversial? Inappropriate? Unfair? Accidental?  How about prankish?  At the end of the day, aren't we talking about unsportsmanlike conduct?  Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The full quote is: "Since then, the series has often been marked by controversy, with incidents by players and supporters occurring both on and off the field." It is clear from context that the incidents are "controversial". The lead is just a summary, it is expanded upon fully in the main text. Strikehold (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After contractual obligations were fulfilled with the following year's game, Maryland and Navy did not meet again until 2005.
 * This statement glosses over one of the most interesting aspects of the article. Maryland and Navy did not play together for four decades.  That should really be emphasized in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded a bit. Strikehold (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

 * Nothing about the origin of the name. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you changed the dab link from University of Maryland, College Park, back to College Park, Maryland. I'm not sure why you did this.  I originally changed it because the source seemed to be referring to female students at the University of Maryland: "The Terrapins claimed their own reasons for ill will, ranging from cheap hits by the Navy players to Midshipmen coming onto their campus to date Maryland coeds."  Doesn't "their campus" refer to University of Maryland, College Park? Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't change it back; it originally linked to College Park, which is a disambiguation page. You linked it to the school, I then linked it to the city in Maryland. The campus is located within the (rather small) city of College Park, Maryland. It is, at least, equally correct to link it there, and it prevents a piped link. Besides, I don't know where you would go on a date on the campus. Regardless, this is really splitting hairs. Strikehold (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a big deal, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. It was originally a dab page.  I read the source material, and changed the dab link to a direct link to the University.  Then, you changed it to the city.  Which, in your opinion, is more accurate? Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the city, for the reasons stated above. Strikehold (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree. Campus implies the university, not the city. "Coming onto their campus to date Maryland coeds" is pretty clear.  It doesn't say, coming into their city.  Campus: traditionally the land on which a college or university and related institutional buildings are situated.  You say "I don't know where you would go on a date on the campus" but surely you know that "dating" is a euphemism for sex? Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty big inference. Campus doesn't imply the university, that is its denotation. But the fact remains, linking the city is equally correct--the university/campus is located in College Park. Strikehold (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But they weren't headed to College Park. They were headed to the campus of the University of Maryland.  It's pretty clear. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is like saying "I'm not going to New York, I'm going to Manhattan." Strikehold (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they weren't going to College Park. If you recall, the University was one of the listed choices for disambiguation: College Park, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC > University of Maryland, College Park, the flagship state university of Maryland.  Why would you disambiguate to College Park but not to the University?  Don't answer, I already know how you feel. :) Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

History

 * Future of the series: 2010–
 * 14 words? Do you think this can be expanded a bit more? Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It could probably be expanded a couple of sentences, I'll see what I can do. But for a game scheduled two seasons from now, there isn't really too much to say. I know it's short, but it doesn't really make much sense to me to roll that part back into another section. Strikehold (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal, but I am curious if there is more information. If there isn't, that's fine. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Expanded. Strikehold (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tatum, an innovator of the split-T offense, had brought consistent success to Maryland in the intervening years.
 * Right, but the source you are using doesn't say that, does it? I looked at some of the other sources being used on related articles and they don't exactly say this either.  This source seems to support it. (College Football Historical Society Newsletter, Volume VII, Number IV, August 1994).  If you have no objections, I will add it. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. The OU Magazine article does say he "found consistent success": "'he might have been disappointed in his two losses to Wilkinson in the 1954 and 1956 Orange Bowl games, he had plenty to celebrate at Maryland. In nine years, his Terrapins won 73 games, lost 15, tied 4, played in five bowl games and at one point, reeled off 19 straight victories. Tatum’s 1953 squad was ranked number one by all the major wire services, and he was voted “Coach of the Year.“'" I thought I recalled the OU Magazine article saying more about his role in developing the split-T, but it doesn't look like it. Feel free to add that ref. Strikehold (talk)


 * Early in the game, Navy's Frank Brady returned a punt 100 yards to take the lead, 7–0. It was the only time of Maryland's undefeated season that they trailed an opponent. The Terrapins responded on the next series and, by the end of the third quarter, had taken the game in hand, 34–7.
 * You are referring to the 1951 game (Early in the game) and the 1952 game (responded on the next series) without mentioning dates. Could you add those years? Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself, but I'm curious why it isn't linked to the '51 and '52 seasons. If there are no objections, I'll add the links. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it isn't that important right now. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "You are referring to the 1951 game (Early in the game) and the 1952 game (responded on the next series) without mentioning dates": No, I'm not. That is all about the 1951 game. I fixed it. Strikehold (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Middle-finger incident: 1964
 * Per guidelines, each quote needs to have a reference at the end of the sentence. I think what you did is you placed the ref at the end of the paragraph instead.  I'll take a look and see if I can fix it. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Results

 * Table colors are too dark. Please use the lighter shades to avoid any problems.  I can help out with this. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. All table elements are now easily discernible by colorblind users . Strikehold (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)