Talk:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham

Comments

Well I started this page and named it per the College Football Wikiproject naming conventions, so I hope that's not a problem. Anyway, I plan on creating (as redirects to this page) 2002 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team and 2003 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team and also redirecting (maybe needs discussion first) 2004 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team soon. If anyone ends up creating those articles and establish notability, I think an addition of {{main}} on this page to link to that would be helpful. I'm also going to fix the correct years on {{NotreDameFootballSeasons}} to link here. Anyway, any comments on this page to improve? Phydend 01:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Split

It seems arbitrary, and somewhat POV, for there to be an article highlighting this particular coaches tenure at ND in such a way. There aren't similar articles on Holzt's, Davies', or even Ara's tenures, so why Willingham? This should merely be split into articles for each particular season. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there was a discussion at WP:CFB (I'm looking for a link now, but I'll ask there if I can't find it) and it was decided that past seasons that aren't championships shouldn't have their own articles, they should be split by coaches. (See most of the Penn State ones i.e. Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (as an Independent) or Penn State Nittany Lions football under Rip Engle) I don't see how it is POV really, it's just no one's worked on those yet. I'm working on Davie right now, it was just much easier to do Willingham first because I was actually there during Willingham's tenure and there is much more information readily available on the internet. I'll ask over at the wikiproject, but I was already told not to make individual non-notable seasons (see non-national championships). Phydend 00:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If that was the consensus I'm fine with it. It just seemed POV-ish that for some reason Ty's tenure needed specific mention (is if it was contentious, etc). More power to you on the Davie one (my time was during the Holtz years). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was told it was the consensus, but I've still asked them where the discussion took place. (I joined the project this year and many of the guidelines were worked out during last football season). I'm planning on eventually making one for most of the others especially Holtz, Ara, and Rockne, but it's slow finding the information. Phydend 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom

I cleaned this up and nominated it for GA. Because of the large backlog it will probably take a month before it is reviewed, but that shouldn't stop any improvements from happening to the article. Phydend (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: On Hold

Overall, the article is very good. I have done some copyediting to fix POV statements and minor prose problems. My remaining concerns before this article can reach GA level are:

From the lead:

1. From the lead, what is a "top-5 recruiting team"? The wikilink doesn't explain what this phrase means.

From the 2002 section:

1. Rutgers, Florida State and Navy need wikilinks.
2. The second sentence in the "Season overview" section is confusing and would be easier to understand if it was split up.
3. In the last sentence of the second paragraph in that section, the "he" is confusing, as Dillingham still seems to be the subject of the sentence. It needs to be made clear that the "he" is Holiday.
4. I'm confused by the "mirroring the 1993 team" statement in the third paragraph of this section. Could this be explained better?
5. At the end of the second, three out of four sentences begin with "despite". This needs a little reworking.

From the 2003 section:

1. What is a "four-star recruit"?
2. Wikilinks are needed for the teams they played (Purdue, Washington State, Brigham Young, Boston College, Pittsburgh).
3. When the article says, "playing the team for the first time in the history of the program," adding an extra word or two to explain what "the program" means would help.
4. In the second paragraph, it would be nice if you could work the score of the Michigan game into the prose.
5. The final sentence in the second paragraph needs a reference.
6. The final score from the Purdue game should be included in the prose.

From the 2004 section:

1. "Torched" seems too much like jargon and should be replaced with another word.
2. Paragraphs generally shouldn't end without references. Can a source be found for the final sentences in the third paragraph of 2004 "Season overview" and the fourth paragraph of 2004 "Season overview"?

From the Aftermath of the Willingham firing section:

1. I think it would be good to briefly mention what Willingham did next.

From the References section:

1. I'm a little confused by the italicizing in the references section. Is a consistent system being used for when publishers are italicized? If so, could you pleae explain it? This isn't something I would fail the article for, of course, but I'm just looking for clarification.

Once these have been addressed, I will look over the article again to make sure everything is good. It would help me if you could indicate items you have completed with striking them out (like so) or using a  Done check. I've got this page on my watchlist, so I'll be able to see when you're finished. Please get in touch or make a note here if there is anything you don't agree with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I added information (including placing this article on hold) but forgot to update my signature. This article was placed on hold at 02:37 on 26 March 2008. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to butt in on another's GA review, but I'd strongly suggest submitting this article for a copyedit for style and coherence. There are scattered problems throughout: half-time instead of halftime, coherence problems, and misspelling other teams' nicknames and names: Bliormakers instead of Boilermakers. A thorough copyedit will pick up more examples. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it a bit, but if I can't finish by the deadline, it's something to keep in mind. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. As long as someone is working on it, I won't fail it. I will look it over again after the changes are made, so I should catch the problems you mention. The Biolermakers thing was a spelling mistake I made during copyediting, so I should be able to catch anything like that when I got through it again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

However, since it has been so long since any work has been done, I have to fail the article. I find this unfortunate, as only two of my concerns remain. I addressed many of them myself by searching for references and taking care of some minor details, but there has been almost no effort made by other editors despite repeated pleas on project pages. If anyone ever wants to work on this article again, I recommend addressing the two remaining concerns, giving it a good copyedit or peer review, and then nominating it again. Best wishes to all involved, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

See Split content above, but many of those editors no longer contributing. Seems the consensus now is to redirect team seasons under a particular coach to coach bio page and individual team seasons. I'd be willing to move text to appropriate pages and changing this to a redirect if everyone is in agreement. My guess is the Bob Davie content for his tenure will also follow a similar route?...Pvmoutside (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)