Talk:Germany Schulz

Auto peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * I have done the best I could.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Persondata for more information.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 285 pounds, use 285 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 285&amp;nbsp;pounds.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, couldn't, didn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * All four are in quotes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Confused at Auto Peer Review
Not sure I understand the comments you left on the talk page. I thought the articles were in pretty good shape (in fact some of my best work), but your long laundry list of Auto Peer Review comments and criticisms make it sound like they are in need of a major overhaul. Can you be specific as to what it is you think needs to be done. I'm tempted to just pull them all back from good article consideration. Maybe that's what I'll do.Cbl62 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 7, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Verifiable?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Stable? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:Fail. This article is very extensive for about a 10 year period, but almost TOO extensive, it becomes a list of minutae at times with no sense of why someone should care about this person as an individual rather than a collection of statistics.  In short, it lacks "sparkling prose."  This person is interesting and controversial, but you have to wade through minutae to figure out who he was.  It also repeats itself in some places, reads like a recitation of individual sentences, lacks "flow."
 * I have done a substantial copy-edit to remove much of what might be considered minutae and have tried to improve the flow. I have tried to focus on the things that make him interesting, controversial, and notable, namely, (i) his role as an innovator in the early years of the game, and the game's first linebacker, (ii) the reasons for his selection as the greatest  center of all time, (iii) the controversies over his alleged status as a "ringer" and academic eligibility (I have also added further context on the ringer allegations), and (iv) the 1908 game which is the single event in Schulz's life about which more has been written than anything else.Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. It covers some years in extensive depth, but then glosses over his coaching career and puts the last 30 years of his life into a sparse paragraph.  One section doesn't tie into the next.  Even if there is not a lot of information, inquiring minds wonder why he gave up the sport, and what connection, if any, did his death have with the All-American selection? Was he in ill health prior?  Was there stress or controversy over the nomination? This fellow appears to have had some carreer controversy, but it is not put into context, it's sort of dotted here and there for the reader to figure out on their own.  Did he marry? Did he have kids?  What insurance company did he work for?  (Do we care,and if not, why?)
 * I have tried to adjust the balance by eliminating unneeded detail about his years as a player. I have also beefed up discussion of his contributions as a coach, though such information is limited.  However, the fact is that the information is quite sparse about his later years.  Schulz was known and remembered for his contributions while involved in football -- not for the 30 years he spent as an insurance agent.  Having conducted extensive research (the article cites more than 75 articles), there just isn't information much out there about his later life.  Even his obituary makes no mention of his having married or had kids.  As for the question about any connection between his selection as the best center of all time and his death two weeks later, one wonders about the connection, and the coincidence is interesting.  However, I felt that it would not be encyclopedic to include speculation about such a connection.  Instead, I think the best we can do is note the coincidence in timing and leave to the reader whether any connection can be drawn.  By the way, he had been ill for months before his selection, as noted in the article.Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Montanabw (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your changes. I had another reviewer give it a look-see and he spotted the following:
 * "Ref number 51 is broken somehow, and the first infobox image doesn't have author info (just see if it's available, if not no big deal so long as there is a source). Other than those, it's definitely GA." So if you can fix that minor stuff, I'll pass it.  Montanabw (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the article. I put a lot of effort into it and got so caught up in some of the minutae that the article as a whole suffered.  Sometimes, when you do a heavily researched pieces with so many sources, you get attached to each little "gem" of information you find.  Your comments helped me take a step back and reevaluate.  I think it does read better now.  I fixed the broken cite, and as for the author, I assume you mean the author for the photo??  If so, my co-author added the photo and has included source information but no information is listed as to the photographer.  Cbl62 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You passed. Congrats!   Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1910 Harvard Law School game
Schulz played in an All-Star game against Harvard Law School in 1910, whence I got the picture for Chigger Browne. Here is one write up of it (I know blogposts aren't great, just a start). A bit confusing is that there were two all star games, one against Michigan-Sewanee-Vanderbilt stars and another against an 'All-Southern' team which included quite a few Ole Miss players. The former included Schulz at center and Dan McGugin playing at guard (and Browne at qb). I figure the article could use some mention of it. I know, "then add it!" but I'm learning about it myself and it might be better covered by someone knowing more of northern football. Cake (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germany Schulz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720184232/http://www.michigansportshof.org/inductees/archive.html to http://www.michigansportshof.org/inductees/archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)