Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Maryland Terrapins football seasons

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool.
• Please convert the references using {{Cite web}}. Cannibaloki 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Use of cite web is not compulsory if the references provide all relevant information. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh... regardless, references converted to use {{cite}} format. Strikehold (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - fails WP:WIAFL Cr 1-6

• This is a list of seasons completed by the Maryland Terrapins football team which represents the University of Maryland in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). - FL's are discouraged to begin with "This is a list of_____"

• Wikiproject College Football featured lists East Carolina Pirates football seasons, Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons, Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons, and Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons were used as a basis for this list and all start in the same manner.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The modern Maryland Terrapins football team traces its lineage to one first formed by Will Skinner in 1892 at what was then known as the Maryland Agricultural College. - comma before "at." Plus, was that was the name of the college right, not the team? So, it needs to be elaborated that the college was named that and not the team.

• Hmm. Not sure where the confusing regarding the "at" stems from, but I've reworded the paragraph hopefully improving clarity.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In its 116 active years, the team and its individual players have accomplished many notable achievements and played in well over a thousand games, including 23 bowl appearances and 18 post-season final rankings. "well over" is WP:WEASEL. Also, you say games before, but then you say "18 post-season final rankings, which doesn't add up. Wouldn't you mean appearances?

• Reworded.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maryland is the only ACC team to have ever twice secured three consecutive, outright conference championships. - Acronym explanation of ACC per WP:ACRONYM. Plus, reword that sentence to "Maryland is the only (AAC acronym elaboration) team to have secured three consecutive outright conference championships on two occasions." [remove the comma before outright]

• Fixed. I left in "twice", because three seasons does not seem to fit the description of "occasion", which would imply a relatively instantaneous event.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim Tatum led the Terps to two national championships, two Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) championships, a Southern Conference championship, and five bowl game appearances. - if the ACC is explained earlier, there will be no need for the explanation here (the acronym).

• Fixed.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bowl is constantly used, but what bowl are you referring to?

• Bowl is a general term that can refer to any and all post-season bowl games...Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose doesn't summarize the list itself: the list is about the Terps' seasons, and nothing is explicitly talked about the seasons, like the first season, the other significant seasons, and the most recent season, etc. (a summary prose)

• Fixed. Still working on improving this.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The list needs to be broken into sections.

• What do you mean?Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the table needs to be its own section, as in WP:SECTION.--SRX 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Already done. Strikehold (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "#(number)" in the table, use "3rd or 5th, etc"

• Changed.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The big black line in the middle of the table is distracting, I recommend using endashes instead of coloring in.

• Changed.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other FL's of this nature use a different formatting, I recommend using it, which is using endashes.--SRX 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why does ref #3 have and (html) in the citation while the others don't since they are also html files.

• Added endashes, but leaving empty cells where something did not exist at the time (ties after 1996, AP Poll before 1934, etc.) as it gives a visual representation of when those things became applicable. Strikehold (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed.Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the footnotes need referencing as well.
• A key would also help to explain some of the column headings.--SRX 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Which headers are confusing? Again, the above referenced FL's are what I used as a basis to build this list, and none have a key explaining the column heading. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I could be wrong. Things like Coaches Poll and AP Poll are wikilinked to the articles themselves which give full explanation of the nature of the polls, etc...Strikehold (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section has been expanded significantly. The other recommended improvements have been addressed. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General reply - those FLC's you mention were promoted before the FL Criteria was updated, they likely may be delisted in the future. I'm reviewing this based on the recent FL criteria.--SRX 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Easy fix. Done. Strikehold (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References added for all footnotes where applicable. Strikehold (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added replies.--SRX 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup - excellent fixing

• Modern Maryland Terrapins football traces its beginning to the team first formed by quarterback Will Skinner in 1892 at what was then known as the Maryland Agricultural College. - comma after 1892
• In 1952, Maryland quarterback Jack Scarbath was the runner-up to the Heisman Trophy which is awarded to college football's most outstanding player. - comma before which is
• These years were marked by bitter competition with 1982 national champions Clemson for primacy in the ACC. - a the should be added before 1982
• Some of the content in the table is lacking endashes, like under Byrd's coaching. --SRX 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• There shouldn't be a comma in the Will Skinner sentence -- the first part is an independent clause, after the "at" is dependent. You would use a comma if the dependent clause came before the independent clause but not vice versa. Fixed all the others. Strikehold (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2005, the ACC became a divisional conference, consisting of the Atlantic Division (including Maryland) and the Coastal Division. Boston College joined the ACC as its 12th member, allowing under NCAA regulations the conference to re-organize into two divisions and hold a championship game. - commas between "under NCAA regulations"
• In 1996, the NCAA instituted overtime rules which made tie games no longer possible. - possibly a comma needed before "which" In addition, tied not tie
• The AP Poll has been published continuously since 1936. From its start until 1961 it ranked the top-20 teams; from 1962–1967 it ranked the top-10 teams; from 1968–1988 it ranked the top-20 teams; from 1989 to the presentday it ranks the top-25 teams - commas needed before it ranked. It reads awkwardly when you read it
• Ref #11 is missing a pdf format parameter.--SRX 01:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• First bullet: fixed. Second bullet: I think either "tied game" or "tie game" is acceptable; google indicates "tie game" is significantly more popular in usage, with reliable sources using either or both (Reuters, Wash Post, etc). Personally, I think "tie game" sounds better. Third bullet: Fixed. Fourth bullet: fixed. Strikehold (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in the context you're using it in, tied flows better in tense.--SRX 05:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, "tied game" just does not sound correct to my ears, but I compromised. Done. Strikehold (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Fails standards on neutrality and prose (Criterion 1)

• See Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons as an example of the current standard of related lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Terrapins have won two national championships, 11 conference champions, and received final poll rankings 18 times." "two"-->2, comparative quantities should all be written out the same.
• I am concerned about the neutrality of some phrases:
  • "Many Maryland alumni have gone onto successful professional football careers" (what is the inclusion criteria for "successul"?)
  • "the team and its individual players have accomplished many notable achievements"
  • "In 1986, Maryland athletics in general were in a poor state."
  • "Since then, the Terrapins (commonly known as the 'Terps') have experienced several periods of success, notably under head coaches Jim Tatum, Jerry Claiborne, Bobby Ross, and Ralph Friedgen."
  • "Maryland entered a long lackluster period of its history"
• "Modern Maryland Terrapins football traces" Was there an older version of Terrapins football?
• "During Jerry Claiborne's tenure, 1972–1981, achievements included three consecutive ACC championships and seven bowl games"-->During Jerry Claiborne's tenure—from 1972 to 1981—the Terrapins won three consecutive ACC championships and seven bowl games.
• "In the immediate aftermath of the Len Bias tragedy" Elaborate on this more (a phrase would do).
• "From 1987–2000"-->From 1987 to 2000...
• "In 2001, Ralph Friedgen took over a Terps team that had just one winning season in 10 years"-->one winning season in ten years...
• "Friedgen went on to become the only ACC head coach ever to achieve ten wins in each of his first three seasons, from 2001–2003."-->Friedgen became the only ACC head coach to have led his team to win ten games in each of his first three seasons; he did this from 2001 to 2003.
• "Most recently" Delete, doesn't add anything as you have already said 2008.
• "Friedgen's team was once again selected to compete in a post-season bowl game" Instead of saying "once again", you could say how many bowls the team has participated in, i.e.' their 36th bowl game.
• Season Results should be Season results.
• The win-loss-tie legend needs symbols with the color.
• Use em dashes in the cells without data instead of en dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources References seem to be formatted inconsistently; for example, some say "Retrieved by" and others say "accessed" . Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is splitting hairs to say it is NPOV to call a football team or player successful -- it's not inherently NPOV, because it is something that is not necessarily subjective. For instance, you ask what is the criteria for the "successful careers", if you click on the wikilinks to those players you can see just from a quick glance that they have: 9, 4, 3, 1, and 7 Pro Bowl appearances respectively... And that is just one quick, easy metric. Many also have Super Bowl appearances, All-Pro honors, MVP honors, first or second round draft picks, etc. It would be cumbersome to attempt to name all the honorees or awards of Maryland players and I feel the best course of action is to simply list a few of the most well-known.
• Fixed all of the other phrasing
• Re: "Modern Maryland Terrapins football" -- Yes, there has been football at the school since 1856, though not officially representing the school, and the team hasn't always been "Univ. of Maryland" or "the Terrapins". Before it was known as the Maryland Agricultural College, and then Maryland State College, and has been known as the Farmers, Aggies, and Old Liners. Aside from that, the sport in general was extremely different in 1892 by comparison with it today, and I think the qualifier "modern" is justified.
• Fixed endashes, fixed "Bias"
• I think the "most recently...2008" should stay. In two weeks, it won't be 2008.
• Fixed "seasons"
• The W-L-T for bowl games is visually depicted in the table by the score. As long as color doesn't replace an explicit visual representation it should be fine.
• Why emdashes instead of endashes? They seem more distracting from the actual content...

Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck all the resolved issues. I don't have time today to finish my comments and address your replies; I'll have that done in 18–24 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I look forward to it. In the meantime, I've further considered your suggestions and made the following changes:

• Toned down the "successful individuals" phrase; saying instead that many UMD players have continued in pro football, and that the following were notable.
• Fixed the two (2) (sorry, missed that the first time).
• For the coaches, changed it to their "most successful" periods were under "Tatum, Claiborne, Ross, Friedgen" -- this is objective. They are the UMD coaches with highest winning percentages (counting coaches with more than one season), most championships, and the only coaches to have taken the Terps to more than one bowl game each.
• Reworded "lackluster" phrase to say "Maryland entered a lackluster period, that would result in two winning seasons and one bowl game in the next fourteen years" -- I think this is fair and impartial, 'lackluster' simply means 'not exceptional' according to wiktionary. I think that is being over generous considering the best outcome they had in a decade and a half was two six-win seasons and one minor bowl appearance which resulted in a tie. Also, in that time period, 1987-2000, the team's winning percentage comes out to 0.361, while over the team's entire history it is 0.534 -- showing that the 1990s Terps performed well below the historical average. (I think this is borderline OR, since no source seems to calculate Krivak, Duffner, and Vanderlinden's combined W%, but I feel it illustrates my point nicely).
• I added a phrase to the "Len Bias" part which I think explains a little more what actually happened and puts the football-relevance in a better context.
• I still think endashes look better than emdashes personally (I've tried both), but if there's a standard to use only emdashes I'm not aware of, I'll go ahead and change it. Otherwise, I really do think that the narrower dashes appear less distracting, which makes it easier to read the table when you're scanning to see where there is actual data vice where there is none.

Strikehold (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, you seem to have addressed most of my remaining issues while I was gone. See Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons for the use of em dashes. Em dashes are more noticable but are not that distracting. Most Featured Lists use em dashes. For the Len Bias sentence, he died from Cardiac arrhythmia, which resulted from a cocaine overdose. Also, legend needs something that indicates that T means tie, W means win etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, a heart attack killed Bias (set on by the drug overdose), but I also don't say the drug overdose directly killed him, I simply said "suffered a drug overdose." You could also say that a cardiac arrhythmia didn't kill him, the cardiac arrest caused by the arrhythmia killed him. What does any of that really add though? I think adding something like "when Maryland basketball Len Bias suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia brought on by a cocaine overdose..." is unnecessarily verbose and gives undue weight to something that is tangentially related to the subject matter. The main point is, it was a drug-related death, and that's what caused the controversy within the school at the time.
• I think W-L-T, meaning win, loss, and tie are common knowledge and I don't want to put it directly in the bowl w-l-t table because that may cause undue confusion. So I added it to the legend on the bottom of the table.
• As for en/emdashes, most of the NFL coaches featured lists use endashes (though not all), so it seems to just be a stylistic difference as per WP:MOS...

Strikehold (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Instead of using Maryland as a short term, shouldn't you use Terrapins? The reason for this is because for example, Los Angeles Lakers seasons use Lakers for short, New York Rangers seasons user Rangers for short, etc. etc.
• I think you should move the legend to the top, since readers usually read from the top, some want to know what W, L, and T mean.
• At first when I read about what the diamonds mean, I was confused at first. Can you explain it more clearly?
• Next time you make another (team) seasons article (which I think you should really do), just put the years from earliest to latest.
• Article was very nicely done.

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 08:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I use "Maryland" for the following reasons:

(1) the school was always called 'Maryland' (in some form or another), while the teams were not always referred to as the Terrapins, until 1932. Before they had variously been the Farmers, Aggies, and Old Liners.

If they had former names for the football team, could you tell the readers that they weren't always called the Terrapins? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a link to this other article I recently created, which describes the early era in some detail. I tried a few different ways to add the information, but ultimately left it out because I think it is borderline WP:Undue and I am concerned that the lead is getting overly lengthy, with information that is already in the related linked articles. Strikehold (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2) It gives some stylistic variability, instead of saying "Terrapins this, Terrapins that, Terrapins, etc."

(3) I had not used lists from other sports as a basis, but it is common in the college football articles to use the short-version of the school name (See: Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons, i.e. "Alabama" in this case). Also, it seems to me that in a pro sports context, "New York" or "L.A." is more ambiguous, than saying "Maryland" or "Alabama" or "Georgia" in a college sports context.

• Good point about the legend. Done.

• About the legend, some readers still may not get what "with n '♦'s indicating a tie with n teams." mean. Also, the color yellow is hard to see depending on the brightness and contrast. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you use colorboxes. For example, {{colorbox|#FFE6BD}} -->  . -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Boxes added. Not sure about how to rephrase the legend in a more clear manner. I thought the notation was fairly straightforward, but may be mistaken. Strikehold (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A diamond indicates a tie, with the number of diamonds representing the number of teams tied?" Do you think that reads better? Strikehold (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the diamonds, but couldn't think of a better way to explain it. I think I've got the solution now, using an example in the legend to hopefully illustrate the symbol usage more clearly.
• Pretty soon after I started working on this, I realized, looking at many other lists that they are usually in ascending chronological order, rather than descending as I put it. Here was my rationale for putting it descending:

(1) I believed people are probably be more focused and interested on the modern era, rather than the very early era (recentism, perhaps, but early American football was essentially a completely different sport than it is now).

But if more and more readers focus on the latest seasons, then they won't really want to see what happened before. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but the point isn't to force readers to needlessly sift through information they don't have an interest in. Still, point taken. Strikehold (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The modern data is a lot more definitive than much of the early data, especially from the 1800s through the Depression era.

• Thanks for the comments! Strikehold (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]