Template:Did you know nominations/1970 Westminster Titans 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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

1970 Westminster Titans football team, 1976 Westminster Titans football team, 1977 Westminster Titans football team, 1988 Westminster Titans football team, 1989 Westminster Titans football team, 1994 Westminster Titans football team

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that the 1970, 1976, 1977, 1988, 1989, and 1994 Westminster Titans football teams all won national championships? Source:

Reviewed: Adoration of the Kings, Richard Rodgers Theatre, Ed Sullivan Theater, Adolph Schoeninger, Kurt Rommel, Lou Swarz

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

I have reviewed the first three articles - Long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The hook is directly cited. All three articles are neutral. 6 QPQs are needed. I will make a note on the Older nominations list on the DYK talk page that only three more of these articles need reviewed. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for the fourth through sixth articles; there don't appear to be any issues with the first three, so using a more accurate icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed a trivial error in one score for the 1988 article, as well as a misspelling of flu as flue. The article is about 1750 bytes, and was nominated 7 days after creation. Sourcing is fine, and this article satisfies the DYK criteria. I'll review the remaining two entries soon-ish. Mind matrix 15:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The 1989 article is a smidge less than 1800 bytes, and the 1994 article is just over 2000 bytes, so both satisfy the length criterion. They were both created one week before nomination, satisfying the date criterion. The 1989 article has minor close paraphrasing issues ("The victory extended Westminster's winning streak to 26 games" is essentially the same as the source, and "not making mistakes to let Tarleton back into the game" is close to the quotation in the source and should probably use quotation marks). ~~Could you clarify why the 98 yard interception return counted for only 2 points?~~ The 1994 article is fine and all aspects properly sourced, though most of the PDF sources (excepting the last one) are probably not needed since they do not support any claims not already supported by the other refs. Mind matrix 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Never mind about the two-point conversion; I read over Two-point conversion#Defensive two-point conversion, a rule which I'm sure I knew at some point but did not remember. Mind matrix 17:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the PDF sources in some cases were the source where I got some of the attendance figures and "away game" stadium names. Also, I've never seen a college that makes available the original, handwritten score sheets and figured these could be a good resource for anyone who might care to expand and dig deeper. Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Overall, there is the minor issue of close paraphrasing in the 1989 article. All articles are properly sourced, the hook is short and sourced (see final sentence of 1994 article). Nominator needs to provide 6 QPQs. Everything else is fine. Mind matrix 17:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I will address these issues as soon as possible. The 6 QPQs is daunting, but I will have at it. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I'm currently running a surplus of 29 QPQs—if you don't find yourself able to complete six reviews, I'm happy to help! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's very generous cauldron, and I thank you for that. Give me a couple days, though, and I'll try to get these done. Cbl62 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, of course—give it what you got, I'm here as backup. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the paraphrasing issues raised by Mindmatrix. First QPQ done. Will work on the others. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: @Theleekycauldron: I fixed the paraphrasing, made it through six QPQs, and learned something in the process, including a wee bit of art history and a fascinating lady named Lou Swarz. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62 and Theleekycauldron: The 6 QPQs have been completed, and the paraphrasing issue fixed. There is a minor issue with one of the QPQs, specifically Template:Did you know nominations/Viticulture (board game); because I wrote that article, the QPQ may not be considered DYK kosher. You may have to do another QPQ, and save this one for a future nomination. I'll leave it to the promoter to decide whether editors can review each other's nominations and use them for their respective QPQs. Mind matrix 14:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I have never heard of a requirement that a QPQ doesn't count if it concerns an article nominated by someone who reviewed one's own nom. I frankly didn't even notice the overlap here. If that is a rule, then I will bank that QPQ and do another. Cbl62 (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

To avoid any issue, I have substituted a different QPQ. Good to go? Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it, but I avoid it for caution's sake. Mind matrix 17:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Good to go, and I'm assuming the reviews by SL93 were accurate. Mind matrix 17:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the overlap between articles, there isn't enough original content here for all of these to qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cbl62 Mindmatrix Theleekycauldron SL93 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: @SL93: @Theleekycauldron: @Mindmatrix: I am not aware of any overlapping content. Each article deals with a separate and distinct team and season with distinct players, games and results. Can someone clarify where the overlap is? If this is truly the case, I am happy to add further original content to each article. Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. I also don't like that this was pulled from prep without discussion, notifying anyone, or placing the nomination back to the DYK review page. I took care of it all. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

They may deal with different seasons, but a lot of the content is boilerplate: "The X Westminster Titans football team was an American football team that represented Westminster College of Pennsylvania as an independent during the 1X NAIA Division II football season. In their X season under head coach Joe Fusco, the Titans compiled an X record.", etc.

Each college football season article naturally and appropriately begins with certain core facts, including the team's record and context in which they played. The formatting of these two opening sentences may be standard but the record and results are different in each season. Moreover, even if you were to discount the opening two sentences, I believe each article has sufficient independent content. Cbl62 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It may well be appropriate to repeat such formulations. But the point of DYK is highlighting original content, and there isn't enough here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

With respect, you are incorrect. Even if you exclude the part you call "formulations" (which I don't think is appropriate), there is still enough original content. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I also think this should have been brought to

WT:DYK—this is not urgent enough that the hook had to be pulled while discussions were underway. I also don't agree with how the rule is being interpreted here—I believe that it's meant to stop people from spinning a small article off a larger article via copy-paste and calling it a day. I don't think it stretches to cover articles that will naturally fall into a similar format. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they

/she) 05:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

In case there was any uncertainty, I further expanded several of the articles to ensure that each has abundant original content under any interpretation. 1970 Westminster Titans football team now has approximately 5,500 characters of narrative text -- more than triple the minimum required for DYK eligibility. Cbl62 (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more original content; these now qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nikkimaria! Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62: any chance you could cite the "Marietta" paragraph in the 1970 article before I repromote? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Done. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, promoting to

Prep 4 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk

) 17:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)