Talk:The Ten Year War

Comments

I originally declined this AFC, but later accepted it. I'd written notes on a number of concerns, so I'll add those here;

I'm sure the information comes from reliable sources, but because some things don't have a ref actually on the end of the claim, I couldn't tell, without hunting through all the other stuff. Apart from 'background', some of the seemingly-unref'd-things are - in == 1969: Michigan 24, Ohio State 12 ==;

• Ohio State's 1969 team was dubbed by the media as the "greatest college football team of all time", with a handful of proven All-Big Ten players and All-Americans. - is that covered in the same ref [2] at the end of the next sentence? I do not have access to the book myself, so I cannot check.

The specific problem there is, as follows; imagine if I wrote Chzz was born in 1901. Chzz lives in England. <ref> good reliable source </ref> - and then later, someone edited it, putting Chzz was born in 1901. Chzz has a pet cat. Chzz lives in England. <ref> good reliable source </ref> - I'm sure you can see the problem there; is the pet cat fact covered in the ref? We don't know. For that reason, it's best to add references on the end of each sentence. It's "acceptable" to have a ref just at the end of a paragraph, but it does lead to that problem.

• Quarterback Don Moorhead would score two plays later on the keeper to extend Michigan’s lead to 21-12. Michigan would kick a field goal and go into the locker room with a stunning 24-12 lead. - that's the end of the paragraph, and there's no ref.
• The next two-sentence paragraph, starting with In the third quarter... has no reference.
• Ohio State finished at #4.

The same kind of thing is true of the other sections.

Regarding neutral language,

• Probably the most significant aspect of this stretch of the rivalry was - avoid 'probably' - it either is a fact we can support with a reference, or it is just an opinion and shouldn't be in the article.
• a stunning 24-12 lead - no need for the word "stunning" - just present the fact, and let the reader decide how significant it is
• Hayes really going ballistic - not encyclopaedic language; try to keep it more formal such as, "Hayes became more angry"
• a freshman phenom named Archie Griffin - do you mean "phenomenon"?
• the record Ohio Stadium crowd screaming themselves hoarse - unnecessary exaggeration; just "screaming" would be quite enough
• Lytle would be stuffed by two Ohio State defenders "stuffed" isn't very appropriate
• only blemish was a heartbreaking loss to Oklahoma - opinion rather than fact (whose heart did it break?)
• whacking the ABC-TV cameraman do you mean 'hitting'?
• Tom Cousineau was considered the country’s best defensive player - according to who?
• Avoid contractions - such as "he'd" instead of "he had", or "couldn't" instead of "could not" - there are quite a few, throughout.

Please note, these are just suggestions for improvement; I'm not really concerned about them, it's just ideas for making it better. The only thing that truly matters is, the referencing. Hope that helps,  Chzz  ►  10:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (originally posted on my talk page [1])

 Chzz  ►  13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)