Talk:Oregon Ducks track and field/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Thank you for nominating this article. Please fix disamb. links: Cross country and Olympians. You also link to

Dan Kelly which is a redirect page to Daniel Kelly. No invalid external links.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "He taught some of the world's best distance"->"He coaches some of the world's best distance" - make clear that there were no academic courses in track.

   "counter to many coaches' principles"->"counter to many other coaches' principles"

   "reducing the weight of his athletes' apparel and the traction of their shoes"->"the traction of athletes' shoes and reducing the weight of his athletes' apparel" - he didn't want to reduce traction.

   "He raced in the 1972 Olympics in Munich"->"He raced in the 5,000m at the 1972 Olympics in Munich"

   The source at fn 19 says, " His success - along with Frank Shorter's marathon gold medal at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich - is often credited with igniting the running boom in America in the '70s." yet you attribute the entire running boom to just Prefontane. The problem is the Pre mostly ran track, while aeorbic running such as the marathon was what made up the running boom. I have read more sources tracing the boom back to Shorter's medal than to Pre. The article should avoid such flat claims.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   WP:LEAD says a 29K article should have three paragraphs of introductory lead material. After you address the comprehensiveness, you can go back and summarize the new material by adding onto the introduction.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There is much to cover other than Olympic track medalists.

   Notable athlete section is a big disappointment. Did you consult Kenny Moore's book to start off a list?

   At the least how about a complete list of all track team members with Wikipedia articles?

   How about a section on the impact of U of O on writing about running. The coaches published their own book (some were co-authored with Bobbi Conlan) and there were runner-writers like Kenny Moore.

   How about rivalries with other universities (e.g., Oregon State and Stanford)?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   There is no requirement to move the image to commons, (Consider it somebody else's problem.)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address these concerns. Racepacket (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the disambig links. I've also addressed the concerns in 1A, hopefully to satisfaction. Note that I also added two sentences in the second paragraph of the Bowerman section that I think is relevant to the article that was previously omitted. Some open thoughts/questions on 3A: I see what you mean about the notable athletes section. What do you feel is the best method to go about this? For whatever reason, I thought that long lists in articles were frowned upon (I may have just made that up). You think it's best to go with another subsection named "other" after the "WR" subsection, or lump all the three lists together? Or even forgo the list format in favor of a paragraph format? T&F writing: I knew of Moore and his book/journalism and Bowerman's Jogging book (I guess Dellinger wrote a few as well), but didn't know that was enough to constitute its own section. Do you know of others that I am unaware of? Rivalries: I considered a section on this but chickened out as I didn't find a whole lot info on it. I suppose a reattempt is in order. UO's traditional rival, OSU, I believe had its men's track and field program dissolved in the early '80s and just recently rekindled it, so a few decades were lost. There is a mention of the rivalry in Moore's book. I also recall a recent article on an informal UO vs OSU track race during the Civil War week, but that's just one event. Moore's book did mention "the hated University of Washington", but I believe that is about Bowerman's football days at UO. This article's headline mentions a rivalry but there's nothing about a rivalry in the body of the article that I saw. I know Stanford has a storied history in T&F but I don't know if a real rivalry exists between the two schools. This PPV article says something about a Ducks-Texas A&M rivalry but I'm not sure if one really exists. If I recall correctly, a few feathers were ruffled when there was a controversial finish to last year's(?) NCAA T&F championship meet, resulting in TAMU beating the Ducks. But I don't think that constitutes a rivalry. Current plan: 1. Compile a more comprehensive list of notable athletes; 2. Attempt a rivalry section; 3. Look into T&F writing; 4. Expand intro. Thanks again for reviewing. Cluskillz (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: books, I would go to Amazon.com and do a retrieval on both Bowerman and Dellinger. You can either do it as a book and journalism section or a more general "influence on coaching" section by listing the books and by showing how this group had a wide impact on running. There are so many other influential coachs that came out of th OU program - Matt Centrowitz, Sr. and Alberto Salazar, for example.

Regarding rivalries - back in the day, Oregon and OSU used to try to recurit the same track athletes. I don't have strong evidence re: Stanford and won't press that suggestion. Does the Media Guide: http://www.goducks.com/fls/500/pages/2009-10/mediaguide/2010-Oregon-Track.pdf offer any basis for the existence of rivalries? (You can also check older media guides or do a google search.) I have read at least one historic article discussing the OU-OSU rivalry. Some other Wikipedia articles assume that a college rivalry can be imported from another sport (football←→basketball), but I don't know if that is true.

I bet that with the advance search you could retrieve on "track" and "Oregon" to find a list of relevant biographies. Also, look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oregon_alumni#Track_and_field Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just checking in. I assume that you are still working on the items that we discussed. Racepacket (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, work suddenly exploded last week; almost worked 70 hours last week so I didn't have a chance to do much. I should have more time now; I hope to move the impact section to the article in the next two days or so. Cluskillz (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article hasn't really been worked on since the third. If there's a lot left then maybe it should be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've transferred my sandbox section to the article (Impact on running). Specifically, it's to address the section on the impact on running writing, but as discussed, I decided to generalize it a bit more to the program's impacts on the sport itself. I did put in mentions of writing and documentation by Bowerman, Dellinger, Moore, and Salazar. I moved some stuff in from the History section, particularly a paragraph in the Bowerman section. I thought it fit in this new section better and didn't want to be too redundant. I left a reference needed tag on Dellinger's books since I wasn't able to find a news article that lists them. There is an Amazon list that shows his books but for whatever reason I am under the impression that Wikipedia frowns upon sourcing bookstores? I thought I would consult you before putting the Amazon page as a reference. Doesn't seem right to reference the books themselves either. I will get started on a rivalries section. Cluskillz (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Take your time and do a good job. Pass / fail is my decision, not Wizardman's. You can reference the books themselves. It is like using Google as a search engine, you cite the sources you find, not the search engine results. Kenny Moore also started in a major motion picture about running Personal Best (film) (which included a nude scene with M. Hemmingway.) Racepacket (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've added the book references and the Kenny Moore reference in the film. I also added a snippet about Moore's involvement with the Amateur Sports Act. The rivalries section is also up. I asked for help in this area from someone who covers Oregon track and field and he mentioned the rivalry with UCLA. It appears that UCLA does have a history of dual meets with Oregon which I never had thought to look into. One of the articles referenced is premium material (subscription required - Scout.com). I have a subscription to the service but I'm not sure how you would verify the reference if you don't have one. If you give me your email address, I can email you the relevant parts of the article (I would rather not post premium content publicly). I'm going to look into making another list under notable athletes about multi-sport letterers. Can you think of other major additions/changes to the article? If we're entering the fine-tuning stage, I will start thinking about expanding the lead after exploring the multi-sport list. Cluskillz (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I could recite from memory dozens of tallented Oregon runners over the years, but we need a clear criteria for inclusion in the proposed table (or existing table expansion). Pick your criteria: two letter-men, American record holders, school record holders.

• I would move footnotes 41 to 43 to just after each title in the sentence rather than at the end.
• I would have a footnote after each book mentioned in the article.
• Italics for Track & Field News.

You have done a wonderful job, and I deeply appreciate it. The article brings back many good memories. Racepacket (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Finished the above bulleted tasks. I looked into the multi-sport list idea and I think my concept wasn't as notable as I had envisioned. Of the list on the Media Guide, only a small portion of them would be considered "notable". I think that for now, such a list is unnecessary though perhaps I can put in a small blurb that some runners (list 3 or 4 examples) participate in other sports. I'm having a bit of trouble defining a set of standards for a list expansion. I don't think setting an American record is by itself notable unless it's a large impact on records like Pre or Dellinger (and they are already listed), much less a school record. My multisport athlete idea went south. Does a WP article by itself warrant inclusion? For example, should I include Jordan Hasay on the list? I realize she's accomplished a lot for her age but her list of accolades (so far) seem to pale in comparison to others on the list. Also, looking at the list, I don't think Mary Decker attended the university though she does (did?) reside in Eugene. I will remove her from the list. Afterwards, I will look into adding to/revamping the lead section. Let me know if you think of any ideas for a notable athlete expansion. Thanks for the words of encouragement. This article has gotten a ton better since your involvement. Cluskillz (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the lead to three paragraphs. I generally split it to:

1. Vital info
2. General impacts on the sport
3. Documentation of the program and the sport

I believe pretty much all the issues marked with an oppose vote have been addressed. Can I get an update with what needs to be updated/improved? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluskillz (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

April 4 reading

A few clean up items and we are done:

• "frequently butted heads over the Amateur Athletic Union,"->"frequently butted heads with the Amateur Athletic Union," - it was over amateurism rules with the AAU
• I added "track and field" between "Oregon" and "history" in the lead.
• "an annual race held at Hayward Field"->"an annual track meet held at Hayward Field" ??? There are many road races held on the OU campus, so let's not confuse things.
• "import Japanese shoes"->"import running Japanese shoes"
• "The people involved in the Oregon track and field program has made large advances in professional athletes and coaches as well as running enthusiasts."->"The people involved in the Oregon track and field program have lead changes that benefitted professional athletes, coaches,as well as running enthusiasts."
• Fn 48, 49, 63 and 71- consider using {{cite web}}, at the least please add the Retrieved date (or accessdate= in the template)

For example - footnote 48 {{cite web|url=http://sportshistory.uoregon.edu/details/show/3|title=Leadership and Legacy: Athletics at the University of Oregon|publisher=University of Oregon|accessdate=2011-04-04}} These are minor matters, and I hope we can complete this review today. Great work. Racepacket (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article with your suggestions. I believe I updated all the references that are straight links to pages without a cite template. Thanks again for the review and all your help. Like I mentioned before, the article has vastly improved with your review. A lot of additions I didn't even think of. --Cluskillz (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.