Jump to content

Talk:1951 Maryland Terrapins football team/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

  • I'm not sure if you are still reviewing this article or waiting for a response to this. But to address the above comments... In my opinion, independence of the source is not an issue as I do not there are any potentially controversial conclusions being drawn from the material. If one is to suggest that the university yearbook is a primary source (which I'm not sure is wholly accurate since it was not written by the team itself), WP:PSTS says:

    "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

    I believe it is within those guidelines.
I have to disagree that using a non-independent source is a good practice YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your second question, to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. The article mentions briefly the offensive scheme that was utilized, the split-T, and it is linked so that unfamiliar readers can ascertain more information from the main article. Also there is a link to the article on American football positions for the same reason. This is in line with similar GA and FA rated articles in my opinion. As for, strengths and weaknesses of individual players, the article also discusses some of the more important players that were on the team. I hope that helps answer your questions. Strikehold (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about forgetting. Because I do not know about American sports I will have to use some analogies. In this point it only mentions the raw skeleton of the structure, like in Formation (association football). But even, eg, for the same structure, there are different strengths and weaknesses of the players. For example, if a team has a lot of tall forwards, and they are playing against a team with short defenders, they will try and pass the ball in the air a lot. eg, when Australia plays against Asian teams in soccer, they usually play in the air with tall players because the Asians tend to be short. Some other teams have more mobile players who are good at turning and dodging defenders. Some have good wingers and like to outflank their opponents. Some have good left footers so they like attacking on the left hand side of the ground. Those kinds of things. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In rugby, which is similar to NFL, if they have speedy backs/wingers, they will try to pass the ball to side edges and try to outflank the other team. Or if they have strong bulldozer/offensive linesmen type people they might try to just squash the other team. For example the Australian rugby team a few years ago had weak forwards and a lot of times when they did a scrum (rugby), the other team pushed them so hard that they fell over. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have listed the players in the key positions (I know nothing about a quarterback except that he is considered the talismanic player) but simply saying that assumes that all of them follow a stereotypical mould for a given position. Some might be good/poor and throwing accurately, creativity in orchestrating manouevres, intercepting balls, fast/slow running etc. eg the Fullback article says "in recent years the position has evolved to be more a blocker than a runner, with occasional pass-catching duties", so different players do have different strengths and weaknesses or priorities. Simlarly The Invincibles (cricket)

used four fast bowlers, Lindwall bowled with a low, skiddy trajectory, Miller bowled with high trajectory and was known for being unpredictable, Johnston bowled left-arm and was good on sticky wickets and Toshack used a style/tactic known as leg theory. Other teams might use all right-armers or all left-armers and bowlers specialise in different "tricks" to win. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, this article is about comparable to similar ones in the state that they were promoted to Good Article status (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team). It is a little less substantial insofar as sources from this period are more difficult to come by online. If you disagree, you can probably go ahead and close the review as I don't have the motivation for a major overhaul at the moment. Strikehold (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1951_Maryland_Terrapins_football_team/GA1&oldid=957568425"