Talk:1961 San Diego Chargers season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 23:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Worth mentioning that they were in LA the previous season.
- Added this
Overall record should be mentioned.
- Now added
"still stand" as of when?
- "As of" tag added.
The second paragraph could be greatly expanded. Who had notable seasons, and why? Who was team MVP/ROY? Anything else worth mentioning?
- I've expanded this a bit.

Infobox

Any reason the All-AFL and AFL All-Stars aren't mentioned in the text? What about renaming "Team awards" just "Awards", and putting those details in there?
- I've reworked the Awards section

Relocation

The Chargers struggled to attract fans in Los Angeles throughout — Suggest "The Los Angeles Chargers struggled to attract fans throughout", to indicate the forthcoming name change.
- Amended
Oilers and Denver can take links to the articles for those teams' seasons.
- Links added
Sid Gillman needs an introduction.
- I've described him as the head coach and general manager
Should clarify that the 1960 American Football League Championship Game was against Houston, to make the move there make more sense.
- Clarification added
The team's success in their opening season is indicated, but somewhat obliquely. It might be worth adding their overall record.
- I've now mentioned their record in contrast to the more-popular Rams
The caption contains information that would be helpful to also incorporate into the main text.
- Now incorporated

AFL draft

Did everyone in the chart who does not have a "signed by [or traded to] [NFL/CFL team]" note sign with the Chargers, even if they didn't ultimately make the roster?
- I don't think there's any way of knowing that now. Some might have signed contract and been cut in camp, while other might have decided not to play pro football at all.
Do any of the players in the chart deserve red links?
- I've found one player who spent two season in the CFL, and another who played three times for the Broncos, and red-linked those as meeting Wikipedia sports notability.

Departures/Arrivals

Is it worth adding another brief section on notable returning players?
- I guess I view a player returning as the default. Unless there was a serious threat of a particular player leaving, e.g. contract holdout, I don't think they're usually mentioned in season articles.
Jack Kemp needs an introduction.
- I've identified him as the starting quarterback.
Keith Lincoln was trained as a kicker? The article says he was a running back.
- I've added a line clarifying that Lincoln was primarily a running back. Agajanian was unusual in being a specialist kicker - back then the kicking and punting roles were usually taken as a second job by an offensive or defensive player (the roster limit was only about 35, so specialists were seen as an unnecessary luxury).

Overview

Is flanker what wide receiver was called back then?
- There were a few different positions which are now collectively known as wide receiver. I've amended the link to wide receiver so that it skips to the section listing the sub-positions.
Kocourek should be described as a flanker above (when introduced), not here.
- Now amended
the most in AFL or NFL history — As of when? The link suggests 2011, which is pretty out of date.
- I think that link might have been left over from before I started working on the page - I've updated it, and noted that Cleveland had more takeaways during an AAFC season.
in both league histories ... also records — It's unclear if these were records at the time, or are still records.
- Interception return TDs and interceptions both clarified as standing records. The stathead tool doesn't track interception return yards, so I've removed that claim.
As a general rule, the first time someone is mentioned in the text (not including the lead), they should get a full name and a link. Subsequent mentions should get last name only, and no link. I've caught some of these, but probably not all.
- Thanks - it's hard to keep track of who I've mentioned and when while writing the article, as I don't always do the sections in order.
  - The way I would do it is do a Ctrl+F for the last name of everyone listed in "Roster". That way you can ensure that the first time they're mentioned (besides in the draft chart and the roster) they have a full name and link, and subsequently just a last name. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks - I found a few more using that method
"still a club record" as of when?
- The citation shows this to be a current record. Do I have to specify that all these records are as of 2022? My assumption would be that I or someone else would come back and update the page when the records are eventually broken. I'll add the specification if that's the convention, but it seems like more work to maintain the page that way.
  - The problem with "still" and the like is that it can get dated, and someone may not come along to update it. both WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references and WP:As of provides some guidance here, and the template {{as of}} could be used (which can also be used to track the records as needing to be periodically updated). --Usernameunique (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see, yes. I've put an "as of" tag for these records.
Why is the tally for sacks unofficial?
- I've added an explanatory note.
average yards per punt — How many?
- Now added
If you're going to give an overview of the season, you may as well prominently state their overall record and playoff performance.
- Now added

Week 1

"but not surpassed" as of when?
- "As of" tag added.
Linebacker and occasional quarterback — I deleted this, since Bob Laraba is already introduced above. But the part about him being an occasional quarterback isn't mentioned in the earlier introduction, and should be worked in.
- Amended, and cited his career stats.
lined up under center, running it himself on four of the next six plays — What does "lined up under center" mean? Does this mean he played QB? What is "it" referring to?
- Edited for clarity
Second paragraph needs at least one citation. The first one needs one too—the one citation there is used for only a discrete point.
- Gamebook added as a citation
The Texans managed to pull three points back early in the 4th quarter — This is confusing. At first I thought it meant that they pulled within three points, but looking at the box score makes it clear that that didn't actually happen. Instead, it means they scored three points (i.e., a field goal)? That should just be expressly stated (and how it happened could be given), rather than the enigmatic "managed to pull three points back".
- Edited for clarity

Week 2

San Diego drove 80 yards the other way — Is this the next possession?
- Yes - I've clarified that now
Lowe swept around left end — "the left end"?
- Googling the phrase, it seems you can say it with or without the "the", but with is a bit more common, so I've amended.
since tied but not surpassed — As of when? When was it tied?
- I've added an "as of" tag, and mentioned the first time it was tied.
outgaining the Raiders 386–106 — Yards?
- Now clarified
First paragraph needs at least one citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation

Week 3

Anything to link "sneak" to?
- Quarterback sneak now clarified
still an AFL/NFL record — As of when?
- "As of" tag added
Can a game in which a team scores 34 points really be termed "an indifferent offensive display"?
- Seven of those points came directly from an interception return, and other touchdowns were set up by short fields. It's true that 34 points would usually mean a good offensive performance, which is why I describe the defense as having covered up the offense.
First paragraph needs at least one citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation

Week 4

First paragraph needs at least one citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation
The running back — Who?
- Clarification added

Week 5

First and second paragraphs each need at least one citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation
later set up a Blair field goal — What quarter?
- Clarified as the 2nd quarter
Kemp responded immediately — The very next play?
- Clarified as the next play
"pulled seven points back", as before (see Week 1), is unclear.
- Rephrased

Week 6

First and second paragraphs need at least one citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation

Week 7

"both still club records" as of when?
- "As of" tag added
Anything worth adding about the QB stats?
- I've mentioned the lack of completions.

Week 8

First paragraph needs at least one citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation
When was Enis brought in?
- Now clarified
Perhaps worth adding the attendance figure at the beginning of this section, but not a big deal.
- That does feature in the infobox

Week 9

First and second paragraphs need at least one citation each.
- Gamebook added as a citation
Does "one win from five" mean they could finish the season 1–4, or 1–5?
- Now clarified

Week 10

First three paragraphs need at least one citation each (besides the one for the discrete fact).
- Citations now added
"157–32" yards?
- Now clarified

Week 11

"still a club record" as of when?
- "As of" tag added
"he converted" — Blair converted?
- Yes - now clarified
One play after the Texans went three-and-out — Unclear whether this means "The next play the Texans went three-and-out", or "The Texans went three-and-out, and one play later".
- Now clarified
First two paragraphs need at least one citation each.
- Gamebook added as a citation
Same point as week 8 re: placement of attendance.
- Again, these are in the infobox, unless I'm misunderstanding.

Week 13

First paragraph needs another citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation
The link to the Oilers' season makes me wonder why each week doesn't have a link to the opponent's season (e.g., in the box score)?
- The schedule does have links to the opposing team's seasons. I guess I could put a link on the box score name, but that doesn't seem to be the convention looking at current team season pages.
What does "inspired" mean here?
- I've reworded for clarity

Week 14

returning a Kemp fumble 24 yards for an early 10–0 lead — This makes it sound as if it were a 10-point touchdown.
- I've reworded for clarity
First paragraph needs another citation.
- Gamebook added as a citation

Week 15

still competing for a place in the AFL title game — Might want to mention that this would have set up an immediate rematch.
- I've added this now
one of his four interceptions — Suggest rewording to "his first/second/third/fourth of four interceptions".
- Clarified as the third one
exceeded the margin of their previous road win over the Chargers — Hardly surprising, given the 41–0 tally. I'd thus mention the previous score, since topping 35–0 with 41–0 is noteworthy.
- Previous scoreline now added
the Chargers would take little momentum — This doesn't add much. Is there another way you could conclude the sentence?
- I've reworded

Standings

How were tie games recorded, then?
- Standings were decided by winning percentage, disregarding ties. However, I can't edit that lone, as it comes with the table.
I take it in these sorts of articles you don't include the other division also?
- That does seem to be the convention. It makes a certain sense, as the table is being viewed from the Chargers' point of view.

Playoffs

The article needs to say somewhere that the playoffs were a single-game affair between the two division champions, and that Houston had won the Eastern Division.
- Now added

Game summaries

Why "summaries" (plural) rather than "summary" (singular)? Is this section header even needed, or could it be replaced outright with "AFL Championship Game: Los Angeles Chargers at Houston Oilers"?
- I've changed this to "summary". I think the section header is there mostly for continuity with later seasons, where teams might play three or four playoff games.

AFL Championship Game: Los Angeles Chargers at Houston Oilers

However the section headers are dealt with, another point is that the convention of the rest of the article would suggest that this would be titled "AFL Championship Game: at Houston Oilers".
- Now amended
Why was it at Houston instead of San Diego?
- That's an error, now corrected
It's pretty surprising for the championship game to have the shortest summary of all.
- My reasoning there was that I didn't want to duplicate what was in the separate page for that game. However, there isn't much of a report on that page, and it does feel a little uneven. I've added a full summary.
remonstrated with the official about his conduct of the game — Sounds like something a Victorian sportscaster might say.
- I'm probably showing my nationality there. I've amended to more neutral language.
Why does this section get the "Game information" drop box, but the others don't? And why no link to a box score?
- I've brought it in line with the other games now.

Team awards

Anything else that can be said here? For example, what was the reason that Kemp and Allen were selected?
- I've added a couple more lines

References

I'm not going to do a full review here, but here some things to watch out for:
For {{cite news}}, the name of the newspaper should be in the "newspaper = " parameter, not in the "agency = " parameter. The latter is for things like the Associated Press.
Newspaper titles can be linked.
Newspapers should include page numbers. You could also include volume/issue numbers (frequently on the front page), but up to you.
Printed matter (e.g., newspapers) don't need retrieval dates, since (unlike websites) it doesn't change. (To be fair, many or most of those were added when I ran InternetArchiveBot.)
Lots of parameters seem to be missing for the websites. Ref 19 is missing a date, 20/21/58 (and a bunch more) a date and author.
The media guides need additional information. Does the 2020 one have an ISBN? Are they available anywhere online? At the bare minimum, an OCLC could be added. What page(s) is/are being cited?
Generally speaking, I think the refs need a lot of work—going through them one-by-one, verifying the information, and seeing what else can be added. Much of that isn't required at this stage, but if you wanted to nominate this for featured-article status, for example, you'd need to focus a lot of attention here first.
- I've switched the parameter and linked the newspapers when they're first cited. I can't find the 1961 media guide online, so I replaced that with some newspaper links; I've also linked to the 2020 edition. I'll try to be more thorough with citations going forwards. As I'm only going for GA status currently, I'm not sure how many changes are needed here at the moment - if there's any crucial ones then I'll be happy to do those.
  - Harper J. Cole, I would add the page numbers for the newspapers and, when possible, authors and dates (especially for websites). And look out for references like #59, where, without the URL, it would be completely impossible to figure out what was being cited. As for the gamebooks, is there a link to them, even if paywalled? The "url-access=subscription" parameter would work there. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for doing this. I'm about halfway through so far.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Harper J. Cole. Just finished up the review. The article is already in good shape, and I look forward to passing it once the above is addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique I've made a pass through these now and am ready for you to take another look at the article.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should just mention that I've used gamebooks as citations a lot now. These are put out by the clubs to the press, and include play by play breakdowns of the game, so they're a useful resource. The Professional Football Researchers Association have gathered most of these together in an archive, which is available to paying members. I wasn't entirely sure how to express that in the citation details.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique Citations now tidied up, hopefully.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Harper J. Cole—definitely a good article, and passing now. As a heads up, ref #104 still needs to mention stathead, but not something to hold this up over. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]