Talk:2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team
 | 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
AP poll first place votes
editDo we want to keep up with the amount of first place votes received in parenthesis,
example:
| Poll | Pre | Wk 1 | Wk 2 | Wk 3 | Wk 4 | Wk 5 | Wk 6 | Wk 7 | Wk 8 | Wk 9 | Wk 10 | Wk 11 | Wk 12 | Wk 13 | Wk 14 | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP | 5 | 4(2) |
It would be a fairly easy edit and can be explained in the caption of the template. Mattrob82 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't know there was a discussion started on this. I really don't see the use of putting first place votes in this specific template. This is just to watch where the ratings progressed throughout the season and first place votes are not a rating themselves. I really think this causes more confusion to people than it does good. While you and I know what the number in parenthesis is, a lot of people will not and especially since it is explained by the template it just adds confusion. This template is used all across college football season pages and for the sake of keeping things consistent for people viewing multiple pages, in my opinion it would be better to stick with the standard of other pages. I won't change it for a little while and see if anyone wants to add their opinions into the discussion. Might be a good idea to post this on the College Football Project discussion page to see what everyone thinks. I don't have a problem if we change the template to explain the first place votes AND it is a change made to all the season pages. Rtr10 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It has been a week and no one has even commented. If we have a number of editors come together to form a consensus on this maybe then we can make a change, but for now I'm going to revert back to the current standard of just listing the ranking itself and not including first place votes. Rtr10 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I didn't reply is because I've been through all this before at another page. Someone doesn't like the way it looks so they dig up some obscure policy and revert a lot of hard work put in by myself and others and create a long drawn out discussion that solves absolutely nothing. I personally like the way it looked and it's a relevant pieced of information that would be interesting to look back upon in the future. Mattrob82 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter much to me. But putting the votes on a separate row with a label seems better and clearer. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration, but I also think it is very important to keep a standard with these tables, because many people will be looking at multiple pages (say Alabama's, then Florida's, then Texas') and when they stumble upon a ranking with a "(23)" by it. A lot of people will probably be confused. This is just a rankings progression chart. If someone wants to see the details of the rankings (including first place votes) they can click on the see also: 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings link that is located right above the table. It has all the information anyone could want, including first place votes. This keeps the progression chart clean and easy to read. Rtr10 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! Talk about confusing. That, to the average person, would be 100 times more confusing than the simple way it was in this chart. Plus logic has it that someone looking at the AL then FL and the TX etc... pages would understand the numbers. Now before you say anything I understand that not everyone is going to comprehend what those numbers mean, hence the reason I put the note below the chart, but I've pretty much run out of patience as far as putting my extra time and hard work into a page and someone comes in and causes a big to do about some little mundane detail that I feel is an important and relevant piece of information. I'm not saying you have, this is just a little bit of frustration hangover from a previous page and the long, drawn out discussion that resolved absolutely nothing. Mattrob82 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, not really. Logically if someone wants more details on the rankings, they would click on the See also link that is clearly marked above the template, that will take them to an article specifically dedicated to the rankings of the season. We could cram a lot of information in these tables, including the total vote count, but that is not what the chart is for. It is for the progression/movement of rankings. Nothing more, nothing less. That is a pretty simple concept, but you are not seeming to grasp it. First place votes are important, no one is saying they are not, but it is not a ranking itself and that is all this chart is for, the progression of rankings through out the season. Rtr10 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- No I grasp the concept very well. The debate is over and you've won. Mattrob82 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, not really. Logically if someone wants more details on the rankings, they would click on the See also link that is clearly marked above the template, that will take them to an article specifically dedicated to the rankings of the season. We could cram a lot of information in these tables, including the total vote count, but that is not what the chart is for. It is for the progression/movement of rankings. Nothing more, nothing less. That is a pretty simple concept, but you are not seeming to grasp it. First place votes are important, no one is saying they are not, but it is not a ranking itself and that is all this chart is for, the progression of rankings through out the season. Rtr10 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! Talk about confusing. That, to the average person, would be 100 times more confusing than the simple way it was in this chart. Plus logic has it that someone looking at the AL then FL and the TX etc... pages would understand the numbers. Now before you say anything I understand that not everyone is going to comprehend what those numbers mean, hence the reason I put the note below the chart, but I've pretty much run out of patience as far as putting my extra time and hard work into a page and someone comes in and causes a big to do about some little mundane detail that I feel is an important and relevant piece of information. I'm not saying you have, this is just a little bit of frustration hangover from a previous page and the long, drawn out discussion that resolved absolutely nothing. Mattrob82 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I didn't reply is because I've been through all this before at another page. Someone doesn't like the way it looks so they dig up some obscure policy and revert a lot of hard work put in by myself and others and create a long drawn out discussion that solves absolutely nothing. I personally like the way it looked and it's a relevant pieced of information that would be interesting to look back upon in the future. Mattrob82 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It has been a week and no one has even commented. If we have a number of editors come together to form a consensus on this maybe then we can make a change, but for now I'm going to revert back to the current standard of just listing the ranking itself and not including first place votes. Rtr10 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: two found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
according various publications. various is a weasel word here, also missing preposition.
Done
- Statement reworded and "various" removed. Patriarca12 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are a large number of cites to http://www.al.com/blogs/ Blogs are not a [[WP:RS|reliable source. DoneTwo dead links refs #166 & #199 Done- Otherwise references check, assume good faith for off-line sources.
- All of the http://www.al.com/blogs/ have been removed as each one that was used was a secondary source citation. The two dead links have alos been fixed. Patriarca12 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Thorough coverage of the subject
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Captioned and tagged.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- On Hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, that does the trick. I am happy to list. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for taking the time for the review! I believe I have made all of the requested changes, but please feel free to let me know if anything else needs to be done. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- On Hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110617000845/http://www.kentucky.com/2009/10/04/962526/turnovers-doom-uk-in-38-20-loss.html to http://www.kentucky.com/2009/10/04/962526/turnovers-doom-uk-in-38-20-loss.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100416080640/http://www.afca.com:80/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9300&ATCLID=204843538 to http://www.afca.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9300&ATCLID=204843538
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214181351/http://waltercamp.org/index.php/news/2009_walter_camp_all_america_team_announced to http://waltercamp.org/index.php/news/2009_walter_camp_all_america_team_announced/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017231824/http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-results-archive.html to http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-results-archive.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://cached.secsports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=317 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017231824/http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-results-archive.html to http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-results-archive.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www2.dothaneagle.com/m/sports/2009/jan/22/alabama_lures_auburns_james_willis-ar-196918/ - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113071938/http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/101909aab.html to http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/101909aab.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402075152/http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1021861 to http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1021861
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www2.dothaneagle.com/sports/2010/apr/17/tide_ready_to_shine_at_a-day-ar-184704/ - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2009-12-15/ingram-mcclain-lead-6-alabama-ap-all-americans - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=13971725
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)