Template:Did you know nominations/1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 06:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

1917 Georgia Tech backfield

• ... that the 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team outscored opponents 491 to 17, and was for many years considered the greatest the South ever produced?

Improved to Good Article status by MisterCake (talk). Self-nominated at 05:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

• Most certainly long enough, nominated within 1 day of the GAN being passed, AGF on sources, image is public domain, good to go. Zappa24Mati 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• As the nominator has more than 5 DYK credits, a QPQ should be submitted. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Forgive me Yoninah. I am still generally ignorant of the reviewing and patrolling functions. Here is my attempt. Cake (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's very good. Please keep an eye on the nominator's response, and if he opts to use your hook, ask for another reviewer to approve it. QPQ done. However, in reviewing this hook, I don't see an inline cite on the part about outsourcing the opponents 491 to 17. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The claims like an average score of 55-2 and outscoring all opponents 491-17 I took to be trivial arithmetic, but I can at least outsource the latter to cfbdatawarehouse. Cake (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Would you mind adding the inline cite to the statement about being outsourced 491 to 17 in the lead? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Outscored you mean, surely. Seems I've not quite found the proper balance for sources in leads either. Cake (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, you can say things in the lead without sourcing, but when you use those facts for DYK, it needs an inline cite. Thanks for adding it. Hook refs verified and cited inline. Rest of review per ZappaOMati. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)