Template:Did you know nominations/Fritz Seyferth
- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 12:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Fritz Seyferth
[edit]... that Fritz Seyferth joined the Michigan football team as a walk-on and became the third leading scorer in the Big Ten Conference in 1970?
- Reviewed: Paleontology in Indiana
Created/expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nom at 05:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
-- New article; long enough; within policy.
- Article needs grammar and spelling check
- ALT1- ... that Fritz Seyferth joined the University of Michigan football team as a walk-on and became the third-leading scorer in the Big Ten Conference in 1970?
- I gave it a further once-over and fixed a couple typos that I spotted. As for the alt 1 hook, the only change is the insertion of "University of ..." Within the college football project, the convention is to refer to teams by their common names, in this case Michigan Wolverines football rather than University of ... For that reason, and in the interest of brevity, I prefer the original hook. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with this approach is that the original hook gives no clue as to which Michigan football team—it could be any team in the state at any level—and leaves the reader at sea until the end. If you don't want to add "University of", then "Wolverines" is probably your best bet for clarity; just eliminate the pipe on that link. In this case, brevity is unhelpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not correct that "the Michigan football team" could be referring to "any team in the state on any level." The University of Michigan football team is the only team known as such. This is common parlance in the media. E.g. [1], [2], [3]. The other state schools in Michigan have different designations for their football teams, e.g. "Eastern Michigan," "Central Michigan," "Michigan State". [4], [5], [6]. Also, and to avoid any confusion, I've included a wikilink from "Michigan football" to the main article about the program. Having previously submitted dozens of hooks over the past 5 years on various topics relating to Michigan football (e.g., [7], [8], [9]), nobody has indicated that it was resulting in confusion. I think inserting "University of ..." or "Wolverines" is not needed, but if others feel that this particular hook needs to be clarified, feel free to insert one of those words into this hook. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with this approach is that the original hook gives no clue as to which Michigan football team—it could be any team in the state at any level—and leaves the reader at sea until the end. If you don't want to add "University of", then "Wolverines" is probably your best bet for clarity; just eliminate the pipe on that link. In this case, brevity is unhelpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I gave it a further once-over and fixed a couple typos that I spotted. As for the alt 1 hook, the only change is the insertion of "University of ..." Within the college football project, the convention is to refer to teams by their common names, in this case Michigan Wolverines football rather than University of ... For that reason, and in the interest of brevity, I prefer the original hook. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's get a new reviewer for a fresh look at the article and hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why a full re-review ("fresh look at the article and the hook") is needed since the only issue was whether to add another word to the hook. Was there something about the article or the original review that leads you to thing the full re-review is needed? If so, let me know and I'll address it. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Something in the original review, yes. The first reviewer said there was the need of a grammar and spelling check, and never actually said the article passed everything else ("within policy" is quite vague, and doesn't necessarily indicate checks such as paraphrasing and the like). Basically, the article has simply never had a full, signed review, and it still needs it. I figured that the new reviewer could also give a fresh look at the hook issue as part of the process. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why a full re-review ("fresh look at the article and the hook") is needed since the only issue was whether to add another word to the hook. Was there something about the article or the original review that leads you to thing the full re-review is needed? If so, let me know and I'll address it. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough ad long enough. ALT1 hook facts are appropriately referenced. The spelling and grammar seem good to me. This is ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
