Jump to content

Talk:1973 Buffalo Bills season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1973 Buffalo Bills 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
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
September 2, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 2, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the 1973 Buffalo Bills season, O.J. Simpson set the current single-season National Football League record for average rushing yards per game?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1973 Buffalo Bills season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, as well as having read 1986 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season, and others, this article is not yet complete by NFL season article standards. I'm just going to quick-fail it so you have as much time as you need; there's no need to rush through them. Look through Google News to find more sources to expand with; having Pro-football-reference almost exclusively doesn't help much. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1973 Buffalo Bills season/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Will try to finish the review as quickly as possible... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I saw the concern of the first review was that the article was almost entirely based on one source (football-reference), which shows only statistics. At that point, 19 out of 28 references were from that site. The reviewer said you didn't need to rush, but two days later you nominated again; now 33 out of 54 are from that site. Two days is fast, but I'll just assume you were lucky and found enough extra references in this short time.[reply]

I do this review without any knowledge of the sport other than occasionally seeing a few seconds in a movie. This should not stop me from reviewing the article, but keep in mind that some things thay may be obvious to you are not so obvious to me.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    MoS: see below. Will look at the prose later.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All of the "Awards and records" should be sourced!
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See below
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There are no images, but I understand 1973 is a difficult time period: not public domain yet, and you probably did not make pictures yourself. But you may consider putting a more recent picture of OJ Simpson in, for example.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Manual of Style
Broad in coverage
  • A lot is said about Simpsons record. That they became second in their league is mentioned only in the lead, and can be read from the Standings table. Isn't the league position the most important thing in a season? If they could have had the option, don't you think they would have preferred the first place without the record over the second place with the record? I guess (but I don't know) that the league position needs more attention. Were they satisfied? Did their league position qualify them for any qualification matches? I found out it did not, but the article does not mention anything about it.
I understand that this season is most remembered for Simpson's record, and not for their second place in the league, so this is OK.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional points that I don't know where to put
Why didn't you take the previous reviewers advice and find some extra sources? I did a quick search, and found some that I think could fit in easily:
Prose

As I said before, I know nearly nothing about American Football. Still, this article was not problematic to read. The few things I still had some problems with, may need an extra explanation or wikilink, but other than that, the article is accessible to non-experts. English is not my mother tongue, so some "corrections" that I proposed below may not be needed. In that case, just tell me I'm wrong. This is also the reason that I did not change these in the article, but listed them here. It also included some things not related to prose but that I missed in my first check.

And that's all!

Thanks for the review. I may not get to respond to these issues until the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems that I am ignoring your review. I am trying to finish up a project. My goal is to get my sandbox of articles cleaned up and into userspace by this weekend. This review is on the back burner.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, there is no deadline for this nomination. I have this page on my watchlist, so once you get to this article, I will notice. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much time today. Will be back in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things still remaining:

And that's a good reason to use them in the infox, but why in the schedule table? It has nothing to do with me not liking the colors or anything, but there is an accessability problem (WP:COLOR). White on red would work, white on blue would work, but blue on dark red is hard to read, not only for colorblind users. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I have chosen a different combination of their three colors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's really close to GA.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good enough for GA now, passing. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

I want to commend Tony the Tiger for all the work he's done on this article, it has a ton of information on it.

I went through and cleaned some of it up, mostly by putting a lot of the facts (which had been spread out a bit) into different categorizations. For example, there were a lot of references to OJ Simpson's records and accomplishments, and I put them all into one section for ease of read. Also, I did the best job I could trying to whittle down some of the wording, without losing context. I removed almost no information, but took out a few extraneous details when they weren't relative to the 1973 season itself. Thanks. Bill shannon (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1973 Buffalo Bills season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1973 Buffalo Bills 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) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1973_Buffalo_Bills_season&oldid=1196076623"