Talk:1901 Michigan Wolverines football team

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

Image copyright problem with Image:MichiganWolverines.png[edit]

The image Image:MichiganWolverines.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

infobox comtemporary/historic logo requirement[edit]

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Logos on articles of past seasons.CrazyPaco (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing statistics[edit]

The detailed statistics seem confusing to someone familiar with today's football game. For example, in 1901, it seems that a touchdown was worth 5 points, in comparison with 6 points today. And some of the Extra points seem to be worth 1 or 2 points, with no explanation of whether it was a 1-point kick or 2-point play conversion. It is suggested that the article be improved by explaining (in detail if necessary) the differences between 1901 and today's game. Truthanado (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a key showing that, under 1901 rules, touchdowns were worth 5 points, extra points were worth 1 point, and field goals worth 5 points. Cbl62 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential improvements[edit]

GA should be a breeze if the tables for each game were converted to prose, with starting lineups and box scores. Cake (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1901 article was written fairly early, before I had access to Detroit Free Press archives. Before submitting for GA, I would want to overhaul the article with info from that newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, better sources can help too. Just commenting on structure. The scoring table at the end possibly renders the others unnecessary, and starters and box scores would be nice. Cake (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a link to hurry up offense is in order. Cake (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And whether to link to the hurry up or the short punt formation for the scheme, and if to mention the short punt somewhere in the article. Cake (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
McGugin was a good punter, so Sweeley must have been something. Nothing about McGugin in the interference eh? The profile from the 1903 yearbook made it sound like there would be. Cake (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did Herrnstein and Sweeley switch positions for Buffalo? Cake (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "t00":

  • From Benjamin H. Southworth: "1900 Football Team Roster". University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library.
  • From History of Michigan Wolverines football in the early years: "1900 Football Team". University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library. Retrieved March 22, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1901 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "Neil Snow, from end to fullback on offense" - Neil Snow is already linked above
    "Boss Weeks was instructed to call his signal for the next play while the team was getting up from the last play" - same here, Boss Weeks is already linked above (wow what a name)
    Got some overlinking in the second paragraph of the "Week 1: Albion" section
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article is well written, comprehensive and well sourced. I don't think some overlinking is enough to put this on hold, so I've chosen not to delay this and pass it outright as it meets the criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1901_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team&oldid=1195876750"