Talk:1920 Buffalo All-Americans season

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Western NY Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western New York (assessed as Mid-importance).

American football Low‑importance

	American football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1920 Buffalo All-Americans season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 5, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
October 24, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Orphaned references in 1920 Buffalo All-Americans season

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 1920 Buffalo All-Americans season'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 "carroll1982-3":

From 1920 Akron Pros season: Carroll 1982, p. 3
From 1920 Decatur Staleys season: Carroll (1982), p. 3

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 ⚡ 16:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1920 Buffalo All-Americans season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I've always thought that links in the embolden introduction were frowned upon, but I can't seem to find anything in the MOS about it. Stylistically, I'd prefer it if the links weren't there though.
- Okay, I moved the links into the infobox.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to mention very early on that this article is about (American) football.
- Added something in the first sentence.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence and a half, the article uses the word "season" four times; it would be best to reword this to cut some of these out.
- I cut one out and changed another.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A note is necessary to explain the "9–1–1" notation: a layperson would be unlikely to understand what this means.
- I reworded it, and added an abbreviation afterwards. Let me know how that works out.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a language variation thing, but "The All-Americans reshaped itself.." sounds odd to me: All-Americans is plural, but "itself" is singular. If it were written "Buffalo reshaped itself.." I could understand that, but written like this jars for me. Similarly, later in the lead: "..and was undefeated against.." For me would be better as "..and were undefeated against.."
- Alright, I changed it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead and the Game summaries section, you link to West Buffalo, but in the Schedule table, you link to the red West Buffalo (football). Be consistent on the target.
- Missed that, fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the article winning percentage, the Akron Pros would only have a winning percentage of 0.772. I understand that it was probably calculated differently, but as that seems to be the case, I think it needs a referenced note to explain that.
- I explain later during the post season section, but if you want me to add something about it in the lead, then I can.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sportswriter Bruce Copeland.." This would be more encyclopaedic language as: "The sportswriter Bruce Copeland.."
- Okie dokie.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offseason

"The Buffalo All-Americans, who were named the Buffalo Prospects, finished 9–1–1 in their 1919 season in the NYPFL." I don't like the wording of this season at all. Perhaps try something like: "In the 1919 season, the franchise was named the Buffalo Prospects, and finished with a 9–1–1 in the NYPFL."
- Alright, fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth naming the two players who stayed, assuming you have that information.
- I only have the players' last names, would you want me to add them or omit it?
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case I'll leave it up to you. Are they not listed in the roster later in the article then? Harrias ^talk 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the names and added them.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, you say the name has changed to the "American Professional Football Association", which makes sense with the acronym APFA, but in the lead, you use American Professional Football League (APFA).
- Yeah, mistake from me. Changed the former to League.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game summaries

I don't like the use of WB, BB, TB etc for the player's positions in prose sections of the article. I think such acronyms/abbreviations are fine in tables with a key, but in the prose I would prefer to see these written out in full please.
- I think I got them all.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still some examples of these: I would change them myself, but I don't know what they are! Week 6 and Week 7 summaries still use some. Also, should runningback be two words like at the article itself? Harrias^talk 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, you're right. I fixed them.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"..ran for an early score in the first quarter." This needs some more explanation: as someone who knows little about American football, I don't really know what this means at all.
- Reworded.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link jargon terms on their first use: touchdown, "shut out", "rushing touchdown", "punt" are a few examples I came across, but there are probably more.
- I think I got them all.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All-Bufalo is hyphenated everywhere except the result table.
- Fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact, this was the Olympics' one of only two away games for its season." Perhaps rephrase this as: "In fact, this was one of only two away games for the Olympics."
- Changed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"For the All-Americans next game.." You need an apostrophe after All-Americans.
- Added.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Coming into this game, the Maroons did not score a point the entire season.." Sounds a bit odd tense-wise. Perhaps try: "Coming into the game, the Maroons had not scored a point for the entire season.."
- Fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Six thousand people were in attendance of the.." Should this be "for the.." or is this a language variation?
- Not sure, but I changed it to 'for.'
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In the first quarter, Anderson returned a 40-yard and a 50-yard punt for a touchdown." Was there one touchdown, or two? This need more clarity.
- It was two, changed the sentence a bit.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Anderson scored the final two touchdowns of the game. In the third and the fourth quarter, he scored a rushing touchdown." Similar to above, this needs further clarity.
- fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Jeffersons' first drive resulted a turnover on downs.[3]" Why is this the third sentence and then repeated again at the end of the section? Presumably just an accidental extra bit?
- Hm. Not sure how that got there. Removed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This game would serve as the only loss, and the only game when the Lumberjacks failed to score a point." This might be clearer as: "This game was the Lumberjacks only loss of the season, and the only game in which they failed to score a point."
- Alright, fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Under 9,000 fans, .." Meaning "fewer than"? Or presumably meaning that's how many fans were in attendance? At any rate, it needs to made clearer which it is.
- I meant that that's how many fans were in attendance. I changed the sentence.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"At the end of the first quarter, the game near-even; the score was 7–6, Panhandles." Not keen on this sentence: it sounds too journalistic and not encyclopaedic enough.
- Changed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"After that, the game "proved disastrous" to the Panhandles." According to who? You need to say who made that claim inline in the article.
- Added who said it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The final score was 43–7; the only score was a receiving touchdown from Homer Ruh." Is that the only score for the Panhandles?
- Yeah, I fixed it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"..and the Panhandles' offense allowed a safety." What does this mean?
- Added the wikilink to show.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hall-of-Famer Jim Thorpe started the game.." Was in the hall of fame at the time? If not, then it should be rephrased "Jim Thorpe, who was later inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, .." You also need to make it clear who he played for.
- Done.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"..Bulldogs' Al Feeney. Feeney never.." Close repetition of Feeney should be avoided.
- I changed it to 'He.'
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed to the end of Week 9: vs. Canton Bulldogs and will continue later. Feel free to address the points above in the mean time. If you have any queries, please ping me on my talk page. Harrias ^talk 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've got to head off to work in a few minutes, but I'll make a note to complete the review this evening. Harrias ^talk 07:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The following week, the All-Americans played their second game against the All-Americans, winning 7–3." Presumably one of these should say "Bulldogs"?
- Oops. Fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why a low fan turnout meant that Bob Nash was sold: was it because the Akron Pros would have struggled financially otherwise? Some clarification might be of benefit if possible.
- Yeah, that's why. Added some info about it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-season

"a meeting was held to determine the 1920 NFL Champions." Surely given the league name at the time, it was to decide the APFA champions? NFL is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole article.
- Correct. Changed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Refs #9, #10, #28, #32, #33 are missing access dates.
- Added access dates.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you link newspapers and publishers: for example Ref #9 doesn't link The New York Times, but #33 does.
- Fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes The Pro Football Archives a reliable source?
- The Pro Football Archives was work done by the Pro Football Researchers Association. It's publisher, Maher Sports Media, is led by Tod Maher. He is the 2001 recipient of the Ralph Hay Award for career achievement in professional football research. He is also a three-time winner of the Nelson Ross Award for his books The World Football Encyclopedia, The Pro Football Encyclopedia and Minor League Football: 1960-1985. The writers of the website have written several books, listed here.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is everything. Once you've responded to these, I'll give the article one more look over, and I should think it'll pass without any trouble. Harrias ^talk 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses: note that I replied to a few further up, so they have some outstanding issues. Harrias ^talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1920 Buffalo All-Americans season. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of the large amount of "citation needed" tags that this article has. These have been posted since 2020. Is anyone wiling to address these concerns, or should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

1920 Buffalo All-Americans season

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: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, with citation needed tags from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all the CNs are from this edit removing a citation to "NFL History 2003" – I can't seem to figure out what that was? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- BeanieFan11 - from digging into old page history this appears to have been an old .net site that was de-linked in 2015 because the site had been usurped by a malware site. Hog Farm _Talk 00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... all of the things now with cn tags could probably be cited with newspaper game recaps – would that be all that's needed to 'save' this GA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - For GA that is probably fine BeanieFan11, although more reliable secondary sources would of course be preferred. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi BeanieFan11 do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh... could you give me, maybe, a week, and if not done by then it can be delisted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, take longer if you want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking into it now... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @AirshipJungleman29 and Z1720: I think I got everything sourced. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Citation concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.