# Talk:1886 Navy Midshipmen football team

This review is transcluded from Talk:1886 Navy Midshipmen football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

The first half of the second sentence adds pretty much almost nothing to the first sentence, other than they were the seventh such squad.
I agree. Removed it.
"but then flipped with a loss to the former and a close victory..." not sure about this, is it AmEng to talk about a season "flipping" based on a loss then a win?
I never really liked my wording there, so I changed it to "reversed" to try to keep a similar idea. Does this work?
Any reason why the 1890 season isn't linked in the lead?  It must be notable if this season is notable.  That, and the 1887 season, are linked in the navbox at the bottom of the article, but not in the article itself (including the infobox).
This is just a preference of mine to not add redlinks to articles whenever possible (although I kind of contradict myself with the rivalry). Because there are probably half a dozen of the players and possibly one or two other things in the article that will eventually have their own article, I would rather avoid linking anything right now, but I don't mind doing it if you think its better to link them.
I understand your reluctance, but I tend to apply a consistent "notability bar" to any article I'm writing, and that means if there are red links in the prose, so be it.  It then usually encourages me to create those articles...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"its first official football program in 1879" wouldn't that be better linked as "its first official football program in 1879"?
Yes, it would. Done.
I would add "season" into the 1882 and 1885 links to avoid easter egg link.
Completed
The third and fourth entry have (Rivalry) but unlinked, which seems inherently pointless to me.
Yeah, it kind of does, but I put that there to indicate that they were a replaying of the rivalry, and linking them again seemed repetitive. Although I guess it would probably be better to just not have it, so, removed.
If the Attendance of none of the games is unknown, it'd be better removing the column altogether, or adding Unknown, or a note, rather than leaving blank cells.
Agreed, removed.
"become a heated rivalry. " reference?
Added
"The contest was an irregularity in the schools' rivalry; all previous and most following games were played on Thanksgiving Day, as a part of the Naval Academy's Thanksgiving athletic carnival." ref?
This is referenced by the ref at the end of the paragraph. Is it important enough to add the same ref to? I'm not fully read on referencing policy.
No, it's fine, as long as it's in there, it's not that controversial enough to need direct referencing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Although not written anywhere, I personally try to avoid pipelinking to redirects, so if you're in the mind to, you could fix the piped links to Rushers and Full-backs.
I usually try to do that too. It's a pet peeve of mine Don't know how I was so sloppy.
Is that "Parke Davis" the same as drugs company Parke-Davis to which it redirects?
Nope. Fixed the link.
Is there a key to the "record", i.e. 5–1–2, is that 5 wins, 1 tie, 2 losses, or 1 loss, 2 ties...? British readers may well associate that format as Win-Draw-Loss as it is commonly portrayed in Association football.
I used the win-loss record template in the first occurrence of win-loss and win-loss-tie. I like the template, although I really wish that it had an American sports setting to change draws to ties. Should I use it in all instances of win-loss, or is the current use enough. It felt pretty repetitive to use it in every occurrence.
single-handily - AmEng?  I would say "single-handedly".
Yeah, I would too. Grammatical fail on my part.
Nothing dramatic, a few points, so I'll put it on hold for a week.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A Texas Historian will be getting to these today or shall I fail the nomination for the time being?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a pretty hectic week for me, so I haven't had much wiki time. I'll try to get to the rest of these within a day or two. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 21:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, thanks for the comments and sorry again for my response time. I have tried to deal with everything to the best of my abilities. I hope I've sorted out just about everything. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 23:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries, a couple of responses above, I think we're nearly there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, links to 1890 and 1887 seasons since all Navy seasons were mass-created yesterday. I redlinked to the captain, Clarence Stone, since I know he is notable. I'm holding off on linking to any of the other players yet, because I haven't looked into their notability, and I am about 98% sure that at least one of them is not notable. Thanks again, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 01:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorted, I'm promoting to GA satisfied with the updates.  Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)