Talk:Oklahoma Sooners football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

College football WikiProject (Rated GA-Class) Oklahoma Sooners football is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.See comments High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Oklahoma WikiProject (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. University of Oklahoma WikiProject (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oklahoma. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. See comments

	Oklahoma Sooners football has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 21, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

Contents 1 Article creation 2 Good article nomination 3 Articles corrections 4 Peer Review script recomendations 5 May go up for Featured Article soon 6 Removal of new content

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)