Jump to content

Talk:Lewis Manly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Cielquiparle (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Manly in college
Manly in college
  • ... that despite having never played the sport before, Lewis Manly (pictured) tried out for his college's football team, made the squad, and went on to become one of the best linemen of his time? Source: [1] ("Manly found his way to Wooster as an undergraduate in 1921 and decided to go out for the football team as a freshman, despite never playing the sport previously. Four years later, he was considered one of the star linemen of his time.") (in case you're wondering its reliability, it appears to be (besides the images) a copy of [2] from Wooster College, which is certainly reliable)

Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: @BeanieFan11: Good article but I concerns about the reliability of Woosterhalloffame. If a reason as to why it's reliable can be provided then I could approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the sources are good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm pulling this from prep. The article (including the hook) is based largely on an unattributed page hosted at https://shootermcgavin.com, a booster site with no visible editorial oversight, and indeed nothing to indicate who writes anything on it, and (contrary to what's said above) no evidence of being "published by the College of Wooster". (Shooter McGavin was the villain in the Adam Sandler film Happy Gilmore.) The page opens with
    Lewis F. Manly is part of the lore at two of today's most prestigious small colleges in the United States‚ The College of Wooster, recognized year-in and year-out as one of the top-75 liberal arts institutions in the country, and Tufts University, widely considered one of the nation's leading research universities.
There's no way such a page is a reliable source for anything, and certainly not for unattributed opinions such as he was considered one of the star linemen of his time and nine total varsity letters, the all-time record at the school -- which isn't even what the (unreliable) source says, which is he had nine varsity letters, which was a Wooster all-time high at the time, according to some historians (underlining added).
And to really rub it in, what first attracted me to this was the hook, which suffers from two WP:ELEVARs ("football" -- "the sport"; "team" -- "the squad"), a "went on to", plus the dreaded despite [3].
... that despite having never played the sport before, Lewis Manly (pictured) tried out for his college's football team, made the squad, and went on to become one of the best linemen of his time?
EEng 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: As I said, it (besides the images) is a copy of [4], published by Wooster College (see the first sentence: Lewis F. Manly is part of the lore at two of today's most prestigious small colleges in the United States ‚ The College of Wooster, recognized year-in and year-out as one of the top-75 liberal arts institutions in the country, and Tufts University, widely considered one of the nation's leading research universities. What would you suggest the hook be? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't know who's copying who, but either way that just makes things worse. If it's the website of the college calling itself one of today's most prestigious small colleges in the United States, then the whole thing is just plain boosterism. Forget the hook until the article itself is sourced to reliable sources only. I'm not even sure he'd pass GNG -- for example, IIRC Marquis' Who's Who is a vanity publisher and not evidence of notability (though this might not have been true 50 years ago -- we'd have to check at WP:RSN). EEng 17:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's most certainly notable (I didn't even add the Who's Who ref) – Manly served 16 years as a CFB head coach, received a NYT obit, and has been covered significantly numerous times. I still don't see why Wooster College would be an unreliable source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many years he served is irrelevant -- only coverage matters. You do have the Who's Who in the article, and the NYT obit is a single sentence [5]. "He's been covered significantly numerous times" -- list them (and please, no more one-sentence obits). I explain above why an unsigned page of boosterism isn't reliable. He may very well be notable but at this point it's far from "certainly". EEng 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Here are a few sources for you, I can probably search out a few more as well.
Canton Daily News "The only three letter man in the class... played guard in football and was Wooster's outstanding lineman."
Evening Independent Newspaper "Professor Lewis Frederick Manly coach at Tufts College awarded the Varsity T for his work in life and for his record of achievement."
East Liverpool Review Newspaper 9 varsity letters Bruxton (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding Wooster, U.S. News & World Report list of National Liberal Arts Colleges Rankings - College of Wooster Wooster, OH #76 National Liberal Arts Colleges.
"From the experts at The Princeton Review" The Best 373 Colleges
Forbes #66 In Liberal Arts Universities Bruxton (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng, BeanieFan11, and Onegreatjoke: What is happening with this nomination? Bruxton (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this should be good to go, as the sources you've shown (thanks) clearly prove that the school has been highly ranked and so an article written by it mentioning that should not be deemed unreliable under the offense of it being "plain boosterism" (whatever that means...) BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article relies heavily on an unsigned article of unknown provenance, hosted on a website named after a Happy Gilmore character, and which was either copied from what might be an official Wooster site, or the reverse, but we can't tell which; try asking at WT:DYK if you like. And I asked you to list the sources qualifying him for notability, but haven't got an answer on that. EEng 01:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this should be promoted – the article on ShooterMcGavin.com is published by the "W" Association of Wooster College, which selects its hall of fame and other things, [6]; it should be reliable, I've never seen an issue with college's hall of fame websites as sources. And Bruxton has proved false EEng's claim that it is "plain boosterism," and those were the two arguments against posting. This should be ready to go in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging two experienced football DYK users for their thoughts: @Cbl62 and PCN02WPS:. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ShooterMcGavin" website is so far from a reliable source that this sinks this article for DYK as is. Please remove the reference from the article and all things it cites, or find alternate citations. If you disagree with me, which is fine, take it to WP:RSN. The hook "one of the best lineman of his time" needs to be cut from the hook as a start, then work back to other sources. Additionally the photo you've chosen is a no go because there's no evidence of publication on the Commons page, as opposed to it was just created circa 1921 and 1925. Additionally, File:Lewis Manly-Wooster-3.png suffers from the same fate, no evidence of publication as opposed to was just taken. The proper next step is to take your website to WP:RSN for evaluation if you disagree with all the reviewers so far. Good luck. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Are you planning to work on the article further in light of all the comments, or would you prefer to withdraw this nomination? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still hold that the source is reliable (its literally published by a university; the title of it is pretty much irrelevant for determining reliability) and the most recent "review" is done by a user who does not like me and seems to have intentionally reviewed it so he could have my nomination fail, but I don't feel like doing a bunch of arguing for it at the present. I'll withdraw it for now and bring it back after getting it to GA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's all a conspiracy. I'm now requesting for the third time: back up your claim that He's been covered significantly numerous times by listing the significant sources (and "significant" means, at the least: not one-line obituaries). If you can't do that then this subject certainly won't pass GA, and may even need to go to AfD. And that'll be true whether people have it in for you personally or not. EEng 15:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to start, by just looking at the article there's an extremely in-depth article on him here, titled "MANLY, GRID COACH EXTRAORDINARY" – another in-depth piece here, another here, another here, another here, etc. – did you even look at the article? It clearly demonstrates notability (and there were plenty of other results on him at Newspapers.com that I didn't cite or go through when initially creating it). You can take it to AFD if you want, although its just going to be a waste of time and end up being "keep." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lewis Manly/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (No original research): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Notes

[edit]
  • added several cats
  • added commons
  • "Manly as selected" Was
  • I hinted at Jweiss's talk page that i want him to add the record table, lol
  • shouldnt the championship go in the infobox
  • do you know if he played basketball all four years. Why does it say 1922 to 1925.
  • why is track in the infobox only 1924
  • I think you should expand the lead with his playing career
  • change external links to further reading
  • "which makes him the school's all-time winningest coach" not sure how old that source is but lets add that to the lead if true.

That's all I think. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information Closed with the nominator BeanieFan11's permission. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA

[edit]

Copying comments from the prior GA review:

  • "Manly as selected" Was
    • Fixed.
  • shouldnt the championship go in the infobox
    • Been awhile since I've read this article – which championship are you referring to?
  • do you know if he played basketball all four years. Why does it say 1922 to 1925.
    • He was a varsity member for three years (22-23, 23-24, 24-25) – don't know if he was a member of a team as a freshman in 21-22. I put "c. 1922-25" in the infobox. Does that work?

That works. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • why is track in the infobox only 1924
    • Not sure what I was thinking . Sounds like he was a three-year letterman in track. Do you know if track seasons are like basketball in terms of dates? (i.e. would it be e.g. '1924-25 track season', or would it be just '1924 track season' like football?)
      • I'm not sure about track seasons, but how do you know he was a three year track letterman?
        • @WikiOriginal-9: Actually, I'm kind of just guessing based on the statement "Upon graduation in 1925, he had nine varsity letters" – he had three football, which means that basketball and track combined to form six... 3 / 3 sounded most likely to me, but I guess that could be wrong... Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, let's just put c. 1923-1925 for track. Assuming track is a spring sport and that he was a three year letterman, his first track letter would have been spring 1923, right? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiOriginal-9: Sounds right. Changed. Is that everything? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's everything. I made two minor copyedits also. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiOriginal-9: Nominated. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should expand the lead with his playing career
    • Expanded lead.
  • change external links to further reading
    • Fixed.
  • "which makes him the school's all-time winningest coach" not sure how old that source is but lets add that to the lead if true.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @WikiOriginal-9: I responded to everything; still a question about the track part and the championship. I also swapped the main ref for one on the Wooster website with the same content and made a minor wording change to one sentence (about 'star linemen of his time'). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lewis Manly/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

See my prior review and the talk page comments. All issues have been addressed. Passing the article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination (second)

[edit]
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 07:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that despite having never played football before, Lewis Manly made his college's team and became "one of the star linemen of his time"?
  • Source: Wooster College ("Having grown up in Erie, Pa., Manly found his way to Wooster as an undergraduate in 1921 and decided to go out for the football team as a freshman, despite never playing the sport previously. Four years later, he was considered one of the star linemen of his time.")
Improved to Good Article status by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 243 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Per WP:QPQ, "A nomination which doesn't include a QPQ (and is not from an exempt nominator) may be closed as "incomplete" without warning." Since there is no QPQ after three days (even though the editor has contributed to other articles during that time) and the article was nominated after the seven-day limit, I do not want to grant the exception for the seven-day limit. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Manly&oldid=1244268455"