Talk:Oklahoma Sooners football/Archive 1

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Article creation

I created this article with the history section first. I will add more content as time allows. I hope to merge List of Oklahoma Sooners Football Conference Championships into this article and add short paragraphical descriptions of Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, some of the rivalries, and a list of individual and team awards. And whatever else I can think of.--NMajdan•talk 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation to qualify "most prestigious" statement

If you are needing to cite the "As of 2008, ESPN ranked the Oklahoma Sooners as the most prestigious college football program since 1936." statement I have links to those articles to qualify that. I would do it myself but am unsure of how to add citation links at the end of the article. Here they are:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=3852829

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/1444/sooners-prestige-restored-by-castiglione-stoops

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4369664

Good article nomination

I have my concerns about this article's prose; for example, the first two sentences are ambiguous about the plurality of the subject ("squad is an elite program", "They represent"). Is there an accepted standard for whether a team is plural or singular? Isopropyl 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go through the prose and look for plurality issues. I changes the one you mentioned but I'll check the rest of the article.--NMajdan•talk 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article and I don't feel there are any more instances of the plurality issue. The first case, as the top, I was referring to Oklahoma football in general, so the use of they was grammatically incorrect and was changes. However, I do use they in other places in the article but I am referring to a specific team, such as the 1955 Oklahoma Sooners football team and thus they would be the correct usage. I hope this satisfies your reservations on this issue and will continue to consider it for a good article.--NMajdan•talk 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article because:

It is well written (good lead paragraph, and is easy to follow)
It is well cited and appears to be accurate
It is broad covering history, championships, major players, wins, etc..
It does not violate POV and NPOV
It is stable
It contains images

--GoOdCoNtEnT 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles corrections

I changed the information regarding the 47-game winning streak for one major reason: OU faced Notre Dame once during the streak, winning 40-0. That would make the statement OU would not lose until the next time they faced Notre Dame false. Also, I changed that the record still stands to the record still stands in Division 1-A football, since Mt. Union broke the all-division record a few years ago, in Division III. I know it's a smaller school and there is no way Mt. Union would win anywhere to that many games in major college football, but it's a technicality issue that needs to be clarified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.119.12 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the corrections. Feel free to create an account and keep editing!--NMajdan•talk 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Miami has a 55 game home winning streak which is the record not Oklahoma's 47 game winning streak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.152.9 (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit, as they, in fact, do hold the longest winning streak. It said nothing about a home winning streak. Latics (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review script recomendations

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 606 yards, use 606 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 606 yards.^nbsp
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^toc
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^copyedit

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May go up for Featured Article soon

All who watch this page: I am on the brink of nominating this page for WP:FA. Right now the article is up for peer review. How long I leave it up before nominating for FA depends on the number of responses. To view the peer review, just click the link at the top of the page.--NMajdan•talk 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new table for awards, NMajdan. I wonder if we shouldn't put a Heisman section in there too. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to make that into a template as I would definitely like to see something like that copied across all the team pages in the project. z4ns4tsu\^talk 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, put a Heisman section in there? I left the Heisman separate since it is the most notable award and it lists winners and runner ups (and hence didn't fit the same mold like the others). And, what would you like to see copied? The Heisman section, the 'Other awards' section or the entire Awards section? I felt I had to do that since that was a chief complaint on the FAC, since it made the TOC pretty long. I like the way it turned out as well. I'll also be expanding this article over the next few months as well, going on suggestions made by the FAC including a brief section on the stadium and sections on the pageantry.--NMajdan•talk 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of new content

I removed some edits made in the past two days by a couple of editors. I just wanted to give my reasoning here that way if they object they can respond to me here. I felt that the new information was pure cruft. It was very opinionated, not in an encyclopedic tone and one edit was entirely in the wrong place. No citations were provided and I felt it degraded the overall quality of the article. In the future, we need to try to avoid academic boosterism.↔NMajdan•talk 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007 NCAA rulings and OU's record

I noticed Wordbuilder asked for someone to check on the accuracy of the record for the 2005 season since the numbers had been changed a lot yesterday (and today). When the AP originally released their report on the NCAA ruling handed down today, the author inaccurately said that the wins for that season would be "forfeited" while the NCAA ruling actually called for them to be "vacated." The difference being that forfeits become losses for the winning team and wins for the loser while vacated wins are simply removed from the record of the winning team. This means that, according to the original article (which was modified to be accurate within 15 minutes), Oklahoma's record for the 2005 season would be 0-12 while the NCAA ruling actually called for it to be 0-4 (since OU did lose four games that season). For verification, just go look at the current version of the article on ESPN or Sports Illustrated. z4ns4tsu\^talk 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, will the article be kept as it is now (showing the vacated wins deducted but with a note regarding the appeal)? There was some editing going back and forth as to which way to list it. To me, it really doesn't matter as long as there is a note accompanying it until the matter is finally settled by the NCAA. →Wordbuilder 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically (according to a side-bar in the Daily Oklahoman that would be hard to cite on a website), the punishment is suspended until the NCAA Infraction Appeals Committee rules. That will probably be in about 6 months. I would suggest that instead of trying to beat back the tides of editors who have good intentions but bad information, we sacrifice a small amount of accuracy for simplicity and leave the 2005 record at 0-4. If the vacation of the wins is overturned, we can then change it back to 8-4. z4ns4tsu\^talk 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On February 22, 2008, the appeals committee finally reversed their previous punishment and gave OU their wins back (Source). Does someone who is more experienced with this article want to update it? I started to but I haven't done much Wikipedia stuff and I also don't know what records need to be updated to reflect the wins being added back. I'd also like to request an inquiry into the records that are listed, because they don't match up with SoonerSports.com's page, added wins or not. Ajerman (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and look into this later. Feel free to take a stab at it yourself. If you mess something up, you can also revert the page. You can't permanently damage a wiki article.↔NMajdan•talk 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but I didn't know the numbers myself and I didn't want to go changing things if someone had reason to use different numbers in the first place. Ajerman (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbank's conference championships

The article seems a bit confused. On one chart they list Chuck Fairbanks as having won 2 Big 8 titles, but another says he won them in '67, '68 and '72. Which is correct? Monkey Bounce 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Should be three. I corrected the mistake.↔NMajdan•talk 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All time team

I removed the section listing the All time team. I believe that information such as this does not belong in Wikipedia. It is from one source and is already dated (five years). If another publisher created a similar list, then which one do we include? Both? If we have to start documenting all publisher's opinions on the all time teams, it will quickly clog the article. The article is already long enough as it is. If you feel it should stay, please explain your reasoning as I have.↔NMajdan•talk 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Stoops section

Following the end of the season, the section for Stoops needs a complete rewrite. It is too long and too detailed. It should be resized to the approximate lengths of the other sections.↔NMajdan•talk 11:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl Record table

Most other articles about college football teams have a Bowl Record table, but this article does not. Didn't it used to? Should it? I would like one. - 4.240.159.79 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl record table would be nice for the article. OU has played in many bowls (probably more than most other schools) so should we create a separate article for the table? BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is 90,782 bytes, I guess a separate article would be best. Then you have a table at the top of the article, but then a nice paragraph about the (key) bowl games below, with links to high-profile bowl game articles (if there are any). - 4.240.78.231 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of high-profile teams have their BCS Bowl record listed separately from their overall bowl record in the big information box at the top right of the article (the one with the conference/national titles, heisman winner, etc). Could Oklahoma's BCS record be added there? Some kind of scientist (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example? I looked at the articles for Florida, USC & Texas and didn't see anything.↔NMajdan•talk 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article: List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons.↔NMajdan•talk 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet logo

In the midst of an ongoing discussion about the use of the logo on pages like this (which I am for), an additional non-free image is added. Unfortunately, I do not think it is appropriate or prudent to have the helmet on the page at this time.↔NMajdan•talk 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about the use of logos that are used on other pages. The helmet logo is not the subject of the discussion that is ongoing. The football helmet logo is only used on the football team page. The discussion is around the other logo in this page. If the RfC goes against using the logo on anything but the main athletics department page Oklahoma Sooners, then all we will have left is the helmets on the football pages. These helmets are commonplace and are part of the infobox. And I say again, they are not part of the discussion of the overuse of non-free images. This image is used exactly one time on this site.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern Era"

I cannot find an authoritative source which lists the "modern era" of football as beginning in 1945. Just about every single reference I've found online which mentions the "modern era" of football is a post or article speaking about Oklahoma's being on top, which suggests to me that it is an artificial demarcation point established precisely where it's established primarily because Oklahoma can state they're the most winning program within the manufactured boundaries. There is simply no rule change or terribly important event which occurred in 1945 which made a drastic change in the game. It is more reasonable to consider one of three other demarcation points:

1934, the year of the introduction of the AP Poll, which lists Ohio State on top by winning percentage and Oklahoma on top by number of wins,

1955, the year racial integration in major college football became an issue, which lists Ohio State on top by winning percentage and Nebraska on top by number of wins, or

1965, the year that two-platoon football became the norm, which lists Nebraska on top by winning percentage and number of wins. Yes, two-platoon football had been introduced in 1941 initially, but it had been rescinded in 1952, and as the 1965 date falls within the era of integrated college football, I think this is more legitimate.

In any case, I'm not stating that Oklahoma isn't the winningest program since 1945, merely that the 1945 date is utterly arbitrary and self-serving. I think, in the interest of neutral POV, either the reference in the article to this feat should be listed as "winningest program since 1945" with the removal of the term "modern era", or that the reference be removed in entirety.

On an interesting side note, if you include a victory for Oklahoma in 1996, for a game which Texas Tech promised to forfeit, but take away the six conference wins the Big Eight Conference ordered Oklahoma to forfeit in 1972, along with their victory over Penn State in the 1972 Sugar Bowl (none of the changes are reflected on the official records), while Oklahoma maintains the edge in total number of games won since 1945, Ohio State comes out on top, in terms of winning percentage since 1945.

Personally, I see no reason why "eras" of college football need to be delineated at all. While "ancient history" in college football statistics might not be relevant to the games coming up next weekend, you can't simply ignore it. This is nothing more than a case of twisting statistics to suit your needs.

DTXBrian (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really!? You can't think of ANYTHING that happened in 1945 that might have affected college football? There was this little skirmish over in Europe and Asia that ended that year. They call it a World War but it couldn't have been that big of a deal if you couldn't fathom anything of significance that happened in 1945.

During the war years young men were choosing to go overseas and fight for their country instead of staying home, going to college and playing football. The dearth of football college football players was now coming to an end as the boys came back home.

Sure the AP poll and championship award really began in 1936 (the 1934 poll was kind of a one-and-done thing). That's also a good demarcation point. But I think many will agree that college football was not playing with it's best players during the war years. Some schools couldn't even field a full team because of the amount of men we were losing to fight in the war.

But don't take our word for it. Here's a couple of ESPN articles that mention the 1945 date as well:

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/1444/sooners-prestige-restored-by-castiglione-stoops http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=3852829

Now I didn't tell ESPN to use the 1945 demarcation point. I guess they thought that one up on their own.

Firstly, sign your post. It's in the rules.

Secondly, I never said there aren't articles on legitimate sites which use the 1945 demarcation. I merely said that every article which does use it is written specifically about the Oklahoma Sooners. Why isn't the modern era of baseball considered 1945 to current? Generally speaking, 1920 is the demarcation used, the start of the live-ball era. College football was fundamentally the same pre-1941 as it was post-1945. There were not sweeping changes. Yes, World War II was a big deal. No, it didn't affect college football. Not one whit. Yes, players went to fight overseas. No, it didn't affect the game. Yes, it affected the play during those years, but there weren't any fundamental changes to the game itself. No major rules changes, nothing. That particular demarcation of 1945 is entirely self-serving, and therefore, it shouldn't really be used. But you're a Sooner fan, and you use it to brag about your team, so I'm not going to hold my breath that you're going to agree with me. OU has a proud legacy, though. You should learn to embrace all of it. Not just part. It makes you appear like a fair weather fan. DTXBrian (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Oklahoma Sooners football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a long article I will make comments as I read through it.

For an article of this length the lead is remarkably short. See WP:Lead for requirements. The lead should encompass a summary of all the points raised in the article. I would expect a three paragraph lead for an article like this. It should be expanded.
The "Owens era" section seems to be mis named as only one paragraph of the three is actually about Owens, the other paragraphs deal with other coaches. Consider renaming the sections by years or some other nomenclature that is more descriptive.
I'm noticing a lot of jargon. Using terms like, "beating them in their back yard the Sugar Bowl". This may be understandable in certain circles but to a wider audience, many of whom are not from the US and may not be familiar with US sports terms, this wording is confusing. I fixed this particular example but there are others. Please consider reviewing the article from the stand point of a person who may not be familiar with sports terminology. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to put isbn numbers in the article. They go in the reference section.
I put a {{fact}} template in the Wilkinson era after the assertion that they went undefeated for three years.
Please update the information about the winning streak of 47 games. The article says as of 2007, this should be updated.
There's a reference to the Big 8/Big 12, this should be at least linked and explained.
Some of the years are linked to sports in that given year like 1953, but other years are not. Please be consistent in this. Either link them all or don't link any of them.
There are quite a few hard spaces added where they shouldn't be. See WP:NBSP for details. Not a big deal for GA but I thought I'd mention it.
There are a few paragraphs without an in-line citation. I won't put {{fact}} templates on all of them but they should be addressed nonetheless.
This sentence, "They entered their sixth game with a 5–1 record (their only loss was a two point loss coming to rival Texas) and unranked[19] and beat ninth ranked Colorado, 23–0." is confusing to me. What does "and unranked" mean in the context of the paragraph? I don't understand.
Watch weasel wording. I added a {{who}} template in the Jones et al section. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that the article outlines both the positives and the negatives about the program. This helps give balance to the article. Well done in that regard.
I'm not sure what this sentence, "He ordered numerous old files to be thrown out; instead, they were archived without his knowledge." has to do with anything. It is in the para about Schellenberger. It seems like there should be more here but I can't figure it out. H1nkles (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stoops era is way too long. The body of the main article, Oklahoma Sooners football under Bob Stoops is roughly 2,600 words (excluding lead and tables), this section of the article is 2,300 words. Please summarize better, trim out unnecessary detail and keep it focused. This is one of the GA Criteria. I'll wait to review this section after it's been edited down to a summary.
I can also see that the first three paragraphs and the last two paragraphs in the section are very sparsely referenced this should be addressed.
No references in the coaching history section.
Update the attendence average in the stadium section, it's listed from the 2006 season.
Regarding references. There are several dead links. You can find them here [1]. The red lines are dead links that need to be repaired. I find 7 dead links. The ref number may be off by one, this is a glitch in the tool.

Overall I think the article is good and a lot of work has been put into it. Unfortunately there are several areas that do not meet the current GA Criteria. I've listed them above. I will put the article on hold for a week and notify interested projects and editors of this review. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any work done on this article. As such I will delist. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heisman Trophy section

On the Heisman Trophy section, it seems that the 5 Heisman winners are listed in bold, plus 6 more runner-ups. But in the year 2004, there are 2 non-bold names, so it makes it look like they're both runner-ups, which doesn't make sense. What does this mean? --Kobra98 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004 Oklahoma's Heisman candidates were Adrian Peterson and Jason White who finished 2nd and 3rd in Heisman votes.TobusRex (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured that out and fixed it a little while after I posted that. Kobra98 (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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 to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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 to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oklahoma Sooners football/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

To get this article to FA standards, a thorough copyedit for the Stoops era section is needed. Also, the Pageantry section should be expanded to include more detail (for instance a subsection on Gameday Atmosphere would be beneficial). In addition, as much POV and boosterism should be removed from the article as possible. Add a bit more detail regarding OU's NCAA troubles to help shift the POV.↔NMajdan•talk 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307013337/http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5896426 to http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5896426

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Feedback

Hello!

I was looking over this article and thought I would leave some feedback.

Some of the older citations no longer have an active link, so it would be helpful to revisit the citation list and update the faulty links.
The section on the Bob Stoops coaching era appears to be too long. Stoops deserves to have the longest section but I would suggest cutting down some of the paragraphs on his individual seasons. You could then provide links to that season's Wikipedia page for those that want additional information.
Even though the Stoops section is too long, a paragraph on last year's season needs to be added.
I recommend adding a brief discussion of OU's rivalries in the pageantry section. There are links to the Wikipedia pages of the rivalries, but I might insert a short background on each rivalry for anyone who is not interested in more detailed coverage from the links.
The phrase "In the end, he was almost too sure of himself" from the section on Howard Schnellenberger seems to be based on opinion rather than fact and should be removed.

The article provides excellent coverage of the program and its history, but I think that my feedback could help to improve it. Thank you! David Potts (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=1949
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100627071300/http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-winning-streak.html to http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-winning-streak.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101113744/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n34_v220/ai_18596119 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n34_v220/ai_18596119
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soonerstats.com/football/stadium/index.cfm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maxwellfootballclub.org/content/awards/maxwell/past_maxwell.htm

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) 22:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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) 09:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oklahoma Sooners football. 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) 16:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]