Talk:1899 Sewanee Tigers football team

Untitled

This article is very laudatory and flowery. I tried to calm it down a bit, but it needs more. It also needs a lot of Wikilinks and things --AW 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving article

I think the page should be moved to 1899 Sewanee Tigers football team, a more standard Wikipedia naming convention. See 2007 Virginia Tech Hokies football team and 2003 Penn State Nittany Lions football team for example. However, the team doesn't have an official nickname. Thoughts? --AW 19:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do it, since their own site calls them the Tigers. --AW 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sewanee-1899-football-team.jpg

Image:Sewanee-1899-football-team.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed with the original owner of the photo (the University) that the photo is in the public domain. I added the photo to Wikicommons and then restored it to this entry.

Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=F026
  • In East Tennessee on 2011-03-17 20:36:47, 404 Not Found
  • In 1899 Sewanee Tigers football team on 2011-05-25 02:29:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team on 2011-05-26 02:11:12, 404 Not Found
  • In 1899 Sewanee Tigers football team on 2011-06-02 00:04:11, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1899 Sewanee Tigers football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Will211 (talk · contribs) 05:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look and review the article, hopefully sometime within the next week.

It is well written

the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct

and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Introduction

• Known as the "iron men," with just 13 men they had a six-day road trip with five shutout wins over Texas A&M; Texas; Tulane; LSU; and Ole Miss.

--This has sentence has several problems.

• 1. "iron men," needs to have the comma outside the parenthesis
• 2. with just 13 men--men is being repeated, would recommend a change to with just 13 players
• 3. replace the word they with something else such as the team had a six-day road trip

• It is recalled memorably with the phrase "...and on the seventh day they rested." --Replace the word it with something else, maybe The trip is recalled...

• Grantland Rice called them "the most durable football team I ever saw."--Replace them with a different word (such as the group). It would also be helpful to note who Grantland Rice was. For example, the sentence could be Sportswriter Grantland Rice called the group "the most durable football team I ever saw."

Before the season

• Reasons for their success include being one of the first teams in the region and the school session running through the summer with a long winter break, giving the team more practice compared to its opponents.--I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means, could it possibly be rewritten?

• Although Sewanee was a charter member of the NCAA's Southeastern Conference when it was formed in 1932, they never won a game and withdrew in 1940.--Again, use something rather than they (such as the school never won a game).

Schedule

• Looks okay.

Georgia

• Upon arrival in Atlanta, the Sewanee men went straight to their hotel rooms.--Is this really necessary?

• Rex Kilpatrick got the second score on a 4-yard run.--Would this be better written as Rex Kilpatrick scored a second touchdown on a 4-yard run.?

Georgia Tech

• Gray got the next touchdown on 25-yard end run.--Change got to scored.

Tennessee

• Looks okay

Southwest Presbyterian

• Looks Okay

The Road trip: 5 shutouts in 6 days

• During this road trip, Sewanee outscored them for a total of 91-0--Remove them, perhaps say "Sewanee outscored their opponents for a total of 91-0..."

• Sewanee played and blanked them all while traveling by train for 2,500 miles.--Exchange "and blanked them all." with different wording.

Texas

• Looks Okay.

Texas A&M

• Looks Okay.

Tulane

• Looks Okay.

LSU

• Looks Okay

Ole Miss

• Diddy Seibels scored with fifteen seconds left in the first half, and Kilpatrick scored another with thirteen to go in the game.--It should probably be mentioned that Seibels scored a touchdown with fifteen seconds left, since the text says that Kilpatrick "scored another".

Cumberland

• Looks okay.

Auburn:The Only Points Scored

• Sewanee won in an 11 to 10.--Sentence does not make sense.

• A controversial fumble recovery by Sewanee the ball back.--Sentence does not make sense.

Postseason

• Looks Okay

Players

• Looks Okay

Verifiable with no original research

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

it contains no original research

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

• The only problem that I have found so far was that I used Checklinks and was unable to connect to reference 27, which should be fixed. Otherwise referencing looks okay.

Referencing is now okay.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

• This feat, barring fundamental changes in modern-day football, can never be equaled.--This seems just a bit bias, perhaps a source proving this point would make it no longer bias.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall

Will211 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I switched the contentious source for another. Thanks for the help Will. Cake (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I read and commented on the first two sections and checked images and sources, which appear to be okay. I will finish reading the article soon, and will finish my review then. Will211 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again Will. Many of the lengthy sentences in the "before" section weren't mine, but hopefully now they make more sense. Also tried to clean up the pronouns. Cake (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished reviewing the article. The above comments highlight problems, which should not be too tough to fix. I made quite a few edits to the article fixing grammar, so those are all out of your way.Will211 (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if that helps. Hopefully I have not made the language worse. On 1899 Sewanee as a feat never to be equaled: one almost never sees more than 2 games in a week nowadays. I am probably a bit blinded by a focus on southern football, but the closest second place finish to Sewanee's road trip of which I know is the 1895 Tar Heels. Cake (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I won't have access to a computer until Friday, so I will take another look at the article then. Will211 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the article looks GA to me. Nice job on finding sources for something over hundred years ago. Will211 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. There is also a large block quote in the "Auburn: The only points scored" section that I do not think is encyclopedic. Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

1899 Sewanee Tigers football team

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of uncited statements throughout the article, and a large block quote in "Auburn: The only points scored" that I think should be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.