The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]


William Wurtenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I present William Wurtenburg, a very obscure 19th century American football coach. Born and raised in New York, going to Yale and playing on its football team appear to be the climax in Wurtenburg's life. He was a college football coach for six years, then spent the rest of his life giving people ear exams. Prior to my work on this article, the most comprehensive biography of Wurtenburg was a two-paragraph mention in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography. After a few months of hard work, I now believe this article will be the most comprehensive work ever made about this man. I received some help from Jweiss11 on fixing some of the mistakes I had made, and this now appears to be some of Wikipedia's best work (definitely its best on a random, obscure college football coach). - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I have to say that I'm disappointed nobody has given this a review, nearly a month into the FAC. When I went through the article, I found it to be well worth my time. There are a few issues detailed below, but I think this is solid overall and deserves more attention than it's getting.

  • Unfortunately not. The New York Times source is citing the fact that Barbour was the replacement quarterback, while Whitney (1891), which cites his ejection, simply states "[...] when Wurtenburg was disqualified in the Yale-Princeton game".
  • Done. Changed the one Pennsylvania to "Penn".
  • The third is Navy's "friendly rival" Georgetown. Added that to the article.
  • I think its probably due to both the date range and the c. Considering the range is all that is available, I don't know what to do with this.
  • You could try removing the circa and just leaving the date range, which would be accurate in a sense since he wrote the content in different years. I don't know offhand if that would fix it, but the idea may be worth a shot. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I removed the circa and it appears to have fixed the problem. Thanks for following up. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I've completed a pass through; this looks like a solid article, but I have a few questions and comments below.[reply]

  • Changed it to your suggestion.
  • Done.
  • I honestly have no clue what the proper wording should be. I never really gave it any thought. I'll raise a question on the WP:CFB talk page in the morning, because I'm too exhausted to do it right now.
  • Alright, now I'm just waiting on a reply.
  • Yes. It was in 1893, which I added at the end of the "Early life and college" section.
  • Yes, it appears so. None of the sources I found mentioned anything about him playing in 1890.
  • I tried to word it a little better in the article. Basically, rules in early college football were not very well established or enforced. Unlike with today's 4-year playing limit, an athlete back then could, in theory, play on a team for as long as they were good enough, iff they had some sort of connection to the college (Paul Dashiell spent a year at St. John's College as a player, six years at Johns Hopkins as a player and grad student, and two years at Lehigh as a professor). In the case of Wurtenburg, he played his four years, apparently took a break in 1890, and attempted to return in 1891 as a grad student, but was ejected and never played again. I have no clue how many games Wurtenburg played in during 1891 (probably not very many, since he is not listed in any of the team's official rosters) but he definitely was thrown out of the last game and his spot was given to someone new (Barbour). I hope this helps. Sorry for the long explanation and for possibly any unnecessary details.
    I think what's confusing me is the phrase "gave up his position at quarterback". I assumed it meant he switched to another position, but I think you meant he quit playing for a while, so of course another quarterback came in. Do we know if he played at quarterback in 1891? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I now understand your confusion. We do not know what position he played at in 1891, and he did leave the team following 1889. I tried rewording that part to make it seem clearer. Is it better now?
  • Simply took out "that year" and put in "1894". Is that better?
  • Changed.
  • Whoops! Yes, it should be 1899. Nice catch.
  • I attempted to clarify this. It was more he started to dedicate himself to his medical career. Poor wording on my part.
  • Changed to 1915.
  • Thanks for the clippings. Yes, this information does affect what I have in the article, and I changed it to include these games. I don't know how well it works grammatically, thought. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks for the review so far. I hope that I have addressed most of your concerns. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've supported above; I saw your post about the remaining issue, which is minor and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK 2 questions (Done)

First 2 images should be OK as well with some clarification. GermanJoe (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified my source for the Wurtenburg image; it was from a book published in 1916. As for the Barbour image, it came from here and I could not find it anywhere else, so I removed it from the article. I replaced it with another, albeit worse, image of him, from the 1893 Michigan team portrait, which was published the same year. Thanks for the review, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the new image better. Certainly not quality-wise, but it's a more natural shot of him. Thanks for the fixes, all OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SandyGeorgia

Exeter is not the kind of place one wanders in to after bouncing around or "eventually ends up at" :) :) Can this please be rephrased? It gives a funny impression of what it takes to get in to Exeter.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it from "eventually ended up at" to "eventually got in to". Is this better? Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commends from Karanacs

I did some copyediting and also fleshed out the lead a little more

Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, firstly, to answer Karanacs: Thanks for covering the first two points, Ian Rose. For the third point, his time at Dartmouth is a blank spot in coverage, so I am not sure if he left or if he was kicked out, so I simply said he was replaced. Will that work? And I fixed the fourth point. Removed the repeating of him opening his office.
  • Uh, I didn't see any direct response or action re. the two-pronged statement "I think conversions are recommended as a matter of course (also, I couldn't see an obvious reason it's "35" in the lead and "thirty-five" in the main body)"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "35" vs. "thirty-five" discrepancy is simply due to how I write. I would have preferred to have written "thirty-five" for both, but I felt like 35 would be better for the lead, since it takes up less space and allows a shorter intro. However, I am fine with altering either one to help with consistency. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dealt with this and the conversion myself to expedite things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, to respond to Ian Rose: Again, thanks for covering Karanacs first two concerns. Yes, the information in the table is supported in the 1890s section. Laser Brain's "long list of nearly repeated web sources" all support the information in the table. And thanks for getting a source review. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Laser brain
  • I did this because White is (I believe) an encyclopedia of famous and semi-famous Americans, so I wanted to include the page of the entry. However, I have no preference over keeping the page number in the bibliography or not.
  • For Harrison (or at least the copy I looked at), there were not page numbers, so "Andover and Exeter: Growth of a Rivalry" is the chapter I found it in. I don't know if it's right to do that or if I formatted it wrong, but I did that to specify where I got it from.
  • I could swear it was when I first looked at it, but I could find no evidence of what page it was on, so I just removed the page number.
  • I added the OCLC. And no, I do not have a copy of the book. Nor have I actually seen a copy. It appears that there are only one, maybe two known copies still left.

Looks good overall. My eyes started to go a bit cross-eyed looking through that long list of nearly repeated web sources. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review. Although I doubt I solved everything, I have responded to all of your concerns. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.