Talk:1920 Akron Pros season/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Robert Smith collection

There's a picture of Paul Robeson that's claimed to be with the 1920 Akron Pros team in the Robert Smith collection. The picture is in

Stewart, Jeffrey C. ed. (1998). Paul Robeson: Artist and Citizen. Rutgers University Press and The Paul Robeson Cultural Center. ISBN 0-8135-2511-X

I am trying to track down this Robert Smith collection. If you don't know this, Carroll claims in his Fritz Pollard that Robeson took Nash's place in 1921. If Robeson is in the picture with Nash, then that means Robeson was on the team. The picture in the book has most of the names illegible. Whether Robeson was on the team or not is probably not really a concern of this article, but if you see a Robert Smith Collection in your travels, then please post it here. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What page is it on?
—Michael Jester (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Darn, I think it's either 42 or 44, but I know it's picture 19 in the book. You can look back in the credits. Worse comes to worse I will get back to you on it in a few days. But that would be the only picture of the 1920 Akron Pros team, if it is, as advertised, the 1920 Akron Pros team. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am presently searching the National Archives. Any picture in the National Archives wikipedia is allowed to use. It would be a GIGANTIC, excuse the caps, coup to get that picture if indeed it is a picture of the 1920 akron pros. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There are already two pictures of the 1920 Pros; I think that's already enough.
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It could very well be the first picture of any team in the NFL. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at your pictures. Nash was much bigger than everyone else which fits in nicely with what Carroll says in Fritz Pollard. Nash does not appear to be in the picture i have. Robeson was 6'2 1/2" 220 so he would have been taller than Nash as Nash was 6'1 205. The description in Stewart's book looks wrong. Although, Nash only played 9 games that season. Authors are stating that Robeson came in very late in the season. Perhaps Nash got injured and they brought in Robeson, by all accounts but Carroll, that would fit, see here: Bob Nash

oh you got it, nash was traded prior to the 2nd to last game of the season...So there we are. That's where Robeson could have come in. That fits. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

National Archives as a source

The Library of Congress has newspapers from the 1910s and 1920s that may be helpful to this article. See this link to see how I scooped up a Paul Robeson review of one of his plays in 1922. [1] Generally, if you can get tasty online sources of accounts of the game from newspapers that are now defunct, that would be very cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

For every game, note the city that they played in, then track down all the newspapers that were in print at the time in that city. Then start digging. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally love contemperaneous accounts of things that can be found online, it's very cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

League Park where they played

League Park Send the folks an email to get permission to use it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ah, thats a crummy picture....still looking. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember, any picture before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain (for the US). So that may help when finding pictures
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

This is a wonderful article. I agree with the peer review. I would do in intro:

The Akron Pros were an American football team that played in the American Professional Football Association (APFA). The team originally formed as the -team name here- in 19xx in the Ohio League. In their x year in 1920, they became a charter member of the AFPA, which subequently changed its name to the National Football League (NFL) in 1922. In their inaugural AFPA season, they posted an undefeated, 8-0-3 season. Their record would be considered the first perfect season in the NFL until a 1972 rule change (your notes here) required X-0-0 ...your words here.

new paragraph:

The Pros only allowed...everything else you wrote here

good luck, great job, definitely one of best football articles I've seen. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I will get around to changing it to something like that in a little bit.
—Michael Jester (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am putting in citation for Fritz Pollard being the quarterback and head coach. I am removing it from the Paul Robeson article. Be advised that some sources erroneously say Robeson played for the Akron Pros in 1920. You have it correct here. You need to be aware of the idea that Pollard was the first quarterback in the history of the NFL, but also be very, very careful with saying that because it is open to interpretation. Doublecheck my citation, he might have become head coach and or quarterback in 1921 and 1920. :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was 90% done with the move and I might have messed up 1921 season w 1920 season, just revert it if I am wrong. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're fine. I plan on nominating this article in the near future. Do you think it'll pass GA? Michael Jester (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"were named 1st Team and Alf Cobb was name 2nd Team all AFPA by the Rock Island Argus." citation needed What's the Rock Island Argus?
There is a citation later on in the awards section, and the Rock Island Argus is a newspaper. Michael Jester (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"The Pros entered the season coming off a 5–5 record in 1919. The Pros entered the regular season on October 3," you used the words entered the season in 2 sentences in a row, needs rephrasing...
Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocking backs was the older name for a quarterback.[25] ....need page number from the encyclopedia
~~you know and I know, that championships were a result of a vote at the end of the season....think about whether that is important~~ you got that...but in the introduction I think you might want to include they were declared champions for the year (but not explain why until in the body of the article) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"affiliation on their stationery; and the trophy that would be awarded to the league champions." that's uncited...I think you have the citation too early in the sentence...check it out...
Fixed citation. Michael Jester (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
this external link already is being used as a citation; why duplicate it:Akron Pros 1920 Stats, History, Awards and More at databaseFootball.com
I noticed that most, if not all, season articles have it. Michael Jester (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
need page number from Willis' book The Columbus Panhandles. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
the term Hall of Famer Fritz Pollard is used two times 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
just wikify Fritz Pollard once in the article 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
wikify everything just once 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"With four games under their belt" ...I think there's a wikipedia against using that kind of euphemism. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"In week eight, the Pros played against the Cleveland Tigers. Playing in front of 8,000 fans," - I would use and and combine, then rephrase
"In week X" you use a lot
check this site: Milwaukee Journal
and this one: Milwaukee Sentinel
and this one: Toledo Blade]
reason is, maybe they said something about upcoming games...66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC) ...you know like one of the players might have said "We are gonna get those guys back from last year or whatever" something that will bring out some emotions and feelings 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
if you get something in the press, then you can put that in place of In Week X 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks man. I'll get to work on it. Michael Jester (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever football team you follow, what's important to its season? Let me think, champions or not, overall season, player individual accomplishements, players that were injured and careers hampered or terminated, profitability of the franchise so you can get new players, fan turnout as a measure of their popularity. I guess maybe everything but player injuries would go in the introduction ???? I don't know. I would get as many citations and notes out of intro as possible. It's prettier to read an introduction without citations. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In their inaugural AFPA season, they posted an undefeated, 8-0-3 season, then add in ......and were declared champions of ...or they were declared the first champions of the ... ............then end paragraph. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So then you answer Who they were, What they were, and What they acommplished ...leave the why and how for later 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

btw, I would not go looking for ...fancy dancy stuff during the season just yet (maybe you won't need it to pass GA), unless you are like bored writing and want to read fun stuff. get the intro stuff pretty and free from citations...wikify what needs to be wikified....the decorations may help it get to featured article 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I kinda like reading some of the old school stuff, although I have not mastered cleveland.com for some old school football stuff. I'll look around when I just feel like chilling, and if I see something cool, then I'll dump it here. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally though, the overall layout of the article is awesome. I do not know where you got the idea of it but it's pretty darn good. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate it. For some reason this entry really interests me. I do have a busy week though with school, work, and other stuff, so I do not know how much I will be able to get done on it. Michael Jester (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article will be here when you get back :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how this relates to this article, but it looks like information is building up that Paul Robeson did play for the pros that season. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Week 12 Game] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Jester (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Week 3] 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Week 4] 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC) [Nov 14 game] 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Thanksgiving Day Game] 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

2 other article from cleveland plain deal; you would have to buy them though :( [2] 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Defender, you can access this at your library: it's for the final game against the Staleys. Bear in mind that one of the historically black newspapers only printed one day a week. But this should end the whole Robeson played for the pros that season: FRITZ POLLARD SHOWS OLD TIME FORM AS AKRON AND STALEYS PROS PLAY TIE: RULING BY OFFICIAL STOPS OHIO ELEVEN'S MARCH TO VICTORY; MUDDY FIELD SLOWS UP GAME; 12,000 SEE STRUGGLE , author is Young, Frank, Date of newspaper is December 18, 1920. Publisher is Real Times, Inc. Newspaper/weekly (probably a weekly) is the Chicago Defender it's on p. 6.

Pollard and Driscoll were the 2 stars of the game. A player tried to take out Pollard by punching him a few times. The defender lists the roster and the substitutes for the game, Robeson not listed. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is Chicago Tribune: STALEYS AND AKRON BATTLE TO 0-0 TIE FOR PRO GRID TITLE This from the newspaper date December 13, 1920 on p. 21, the publisher is:Tribune Publishing Company, the author is Eckersall, Walter 65.88.88.216 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune published on December 12, 1920: Akron Eleven Plays Pro Staleys for Pro Title is the name of the article but it's found via: UNION ELEVEN BEATS CANTON BULLDOGS, 13-7 and is on p. A2, no author listed, the game was scheduled to start at 2 p.m. This article, since it was before the game has an incorrect roster listing. same publisher obviously 65.88.88.216 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The chicago defender article is much longer than the others and is much better, however the Chicago tribune article on the 13th is more legible to read the roster. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

to get to the defender and tribune, go to your university library and click on the database icon where ever it is and then click on historical newspapers or something along those lines. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The chicago defender's article on the last game against the Staleys is 8 times as long as the Milwaukee papers. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a subscription to ProQuest. Is there anyway you can add the information to the article yourself?
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

your library does. just go to your library and ask your librarian. I'd prefer not to because you are doing a great job. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but still. It would be easier and more efficient if we both edited the article. If you mess up the article, I can just fix it or whatever.
—Michael Jester (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask your librarian how to get the book or how to get access to proquest. - Do not underestimate librarians, They will knock down walls for you to get a book.
I sort of live in the inner-city. The librarians in my area are awful.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, you are probably missing out on the library of congress archives, see this link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045211/1920-10-01/ed-1/seq-18/;words=Bert+Bell?date1=1920&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=bert+bell&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=9
In New York City, I go to the public library and say.."oh, i can't read this book cause the library doesn't have it, what can i do?" and they go oh, Columbia University has it and New York University has it, here's a pass, show it to the guard at the door...and then I am in...Some universities do not have guards at the door...like Rutgers University.
Use worldcat.org: http://www.worldcat.org/title/fritz-pollard-pioneer-in-racial-advancement/oclc/22858922&referer=brief_results and change your zip code, see who has it near you. Then email the librarian to make sure they have it.
If I start editing the article, I will wipe out all the citations in your introduction and follow featured article format immediately and will probably end up shocking you. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Do that then, that will be better for the article.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's Willis' book at worldcat: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A9780810856608&qt=owc_search
Very Very important, worldcat makes mistakes. Because it says a library has it, that does not mean its true. You don't wanna drive 200miles and find out they don't have it, email the librarian. Use your librarian. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

by the way, you really need to look at this book. It's a biography of Fritz Pollard's life and it includes lotsa stuff on the 1920 Akron Pros. If your library does not have it or you can not do an inter-library loan, then let me know. I'll start tweaking stuff - the book is relatively old but still a good one:

Carroll, John M. (1992). Fritz Pollard: Pioneer in Racial Advancement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252018141

66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My library did not carry it. Sucks living in a small town. However, there is a preview on google books.
—Michael Jester (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get this book to see if its any good:

Willis, Chris; Horrigan, Joe (2005). Old Leather (1st ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9780810856608. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Super rough draft

I just moved everything out of the introduction and quickly placed it elsewehere. Its a rough, rough, rough, rough draft. The key point is that was the first undefeated team in the history of the nfl, and that record, would stand for generations.

I rearrange things chronologically. Their final standings, for example, need to be listed after the season is over. There's lots of mistakes but I hope you get the point, rearrange everything chronologically. When I move things, I do not necessarily move them to the right spot, I just move them from where they do not belong. Everything must be arranged chronologically, that's the way featured articles roll.

The introduction must be massively abstract and not include what year, for instance, their record was equaled or surpassed, just say for generations. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

LOTS of stuff is out of date and lots of stuff might have been lost. But in order to make this a featured article you need to rearrange everything chronologically. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How is the stuff out of date? Also, I was using 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season as a model article. So I was using the same sections and sub-sections and their respective places from there to here.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 04:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

my bad, not out of date, I meant: not in chronologocial order. You listed every game score before you told the plot of each game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Under construction

I am going to work on the article today. When I am done, I will remove the under construction tag. Then you go back in put the tag on it and switch everything around to the way you want it, then remove the tag. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Try not to edit at least for the next 8 hours otherwise we'll get one of those edit conflicts 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm deleting this: "clubs had to advertise their affiliation on their stationery;". I put it here so you can put it back if you want. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

woot, im finding the games from the Youngstown Vindicator newspaper, 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

go here, could be more out there. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=pqgf-8x9CmQC&dat=19201101&b_mode=2&hl=en 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

woot, we got a whole page article on November 26 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter is blocking my week 5 additions, I tried 4 times

Copy and paste for week 5:

''October 24, 1920 at League Park'' In week five, the Pros played against the [[Cleveland Tigers (NFL)|Cleveland Tigers]]. Prior to this game, the Tigers were considered the best team in [[Ohio]]. The only score came from a [[punt block]] by [[Bob Nash (American football)|Bob Nash]] in the first quarter. Nash apparently grabbed the ball from the Tigers' punter, [[Stan Cofall]] on the 8-yard line and ran in for the score. With an extra point from [[Charlie Copley]], the Pros defeated the Tigers 7-0 to keep their undefeated streak alive.<ref> {{cite news | title = Cleveland is Loser to Fast Akron Eleven | date = 1920-10-25 | url = http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ki1KAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_YUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3473%2C108964 | work = Youngstown Vindicator | pages = 10 | accessdate = 2011-12-11}}; cf. [http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/04-12-119.pdf Akron Pros 1920]</ref> 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter blocked my removal of stuff

It's pretty obvious what needs to be deleted. I went to fast. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes section

Get rid of notes section and just say the stuff wherever it is. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Preseason

what it meant for the team vis a vis the league
what it meant for the team vis a vis their players

66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are up to bat

Here's the template. I would do it one week at a time. I will hit this if I can tuesday morning and I should have gotten Carroll's book in my hands and have had access to the Chicago papers then I'll hit the Chicago Week's game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction guidelines for featured articles

This article looks 2 be 2 paragraph with four sentences in each paragraph. There's a guideline out there. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Left End and Right Ends and Tackles

It's in the newspaper articles. Nash, for example, was a left tackle and Nesser a right end. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Use of Same Source

Generally, I'm untieing this article from the 1920 Akro Pros season pdf on the Coffin Corner by using primary sources.

Now every week has to be looked over especially the week that they won the championship and there is a whole page article in the paper.
I don't have Carroll's book in front of me so I can not use it.
I have almost every week covered by a primary source newspaper. I still have the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Defender out there and I know they talk about the game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

~~How is that using primary sources?~~ Sorry, misread.

The Coffin Corner reference seems more reliable in my opinion. The newspapers are literally 90 years old and sometimes can be biased. The Coffin Corner, however, used a bunch of sources to write their article and seems more accurate.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 22:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

well stated, agree, but then you are also just relying on one source. also, carrolls book postdates it by several years, so that's an even better source and also we post date it by 30 years. I read Carroll's book and looked at his notes, I do not recall him using the Youngstown paper. Also, the first nfl game's pdf does not use the Youngstown paper at all. Look at that game against Canton in november, its a whole page of the newspaper on the game. I think we have more tools available than they did. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
imho, bob carroll is the greatest football historian ever, but that was 30 years ago. if you read some of the old nfl histories like the 1950s books I put up there in further reading, they are really, really, really bad. it's not that the guys are stupid, its that everything has advanced so much. Umm, you are one of the most knowledgeable historians on the 1920 akp season in the world. the prfa is not writing this article, you are. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you for the pep talk.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

American American

You can't use the word American in the first sentence 2x - needs to be fixed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why can't I? It's an American team, but they played in a league where "American" is in its name.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 22:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

it sounds yucky 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed

Don't get hung up on that. Thats kind of like a todo list. Its not something to be concerned with thats featured article type stuff. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I know. I'll get to it.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 22:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many, many uncited information in the article. I have placed cn tags where needed.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed inline

Thats not a dispute between me and u, thats a dispute between authors that I have discovered. Don't get hung up on it. This just says, Hey Michael look at these source, they are conflicting, what do you want to do about this? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess if there are conflicting sources, we shouldn't add it.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 22:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

no, if there are conflicting sources, we investigate it further. I think what the guy was saying was that Pollard started the game and scored a touchdown but, probably, Pollard had tossed down a few cold ones the night before and got sick or being it was 1920, maybe he had the flu. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing major changes

I have not changed any or your content. The only concern I have is how do we deal with Nash being sold amid year. Is that important enough to be in the intro, I do not think so. Every game summary you must now rewrite because I have given you all those tasty Youngstown Primary source stuff. Also, look around the Youngstown paper stuff during the week before games occurred, there may be some good stuff out there. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's worthy of a mention in the lead. And I'll take a peep at those sources.

Hey, quick thing. It's great what we've done to the article. I almost feel its up to GA status. Anyway, watch out when taking out references. You left a lot of stuff uncited, which made me put cn tags everywhere. Also, when citing newspapers, the parameter should be "newspaper=" not "work=". Plus, if you're only using one page, there is no need to put "pages=9", it's just "page=9". Lastly, no need for an accessdate parameter for print sources.

Once again, sweet work on the article.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, its not up to GA status, we need lots of work :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all we need to do is finish the pre season and find citations for the game summaries, and we're good. For FA, that is another story lol.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, game summaries are too short and there's hardly any fun stuff in there. There was nothing about any fights or people insulting Pollard from the stands. We need some good stuff that makes it personal 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no offense, but this is an encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be fun; it's suppose to educate.
—Michael Jester (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

actually, it needs to be enjoyable to read. If you just write he scored on a 43yard run, I can get that from one of the pdfs.

66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

a criteria of a featured article is that it makes the reader want to further investigate the sources 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not true at all, according to WP:WIAFA. No where there does it talk about further investigating sources.09:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

hmm, i thought i read that once, ok, and okay on pages=9 and accessdate== as nonessential — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's all good.
—Michael Jester (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

you're missing an important thing like nash was sold because they felt they had the season locked up and the owners were low on cash 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not read that before?
—Michael Jester (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you get access to Carroll's book? Have you given up on that?66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I went to my library to ask the librarian, and she told me "I have better things to do than help you." So I think the search is off for me. I do know, however, google books have a preview of it here. It's better than nothing, and I'm going to try now to get some information about it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fritz Pollard Hall of Fame needs to be in the introduction

It has to be mentioned that he was inducted into the hall of fame in the intro. Also, the legacy has nothing about African Americans disappearing from the league in 1933. I'll throw some more books up in further reading. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Added two sentences in the legacy section about him. It needs to be expanded, however.

Jim Thorpe picture

I like the other picture better and now there's all that whitespace, thats a nogo 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But considering the fact that the old picture is the pros during the season. Not during the pre-season. So it shouldn't even be in there anyway.
—Michael Jester (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

oh, no, you don't have to be that chronological with pictures. He wasn't on the team.66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to replace it, fine by me. I just thought the picture would look nice. Guess it didn't.
—Michael Jester (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bert Bell

in the footnote section of Bert Bell (the article needs lots of work I know), you'll see lots of explanatory notes in the citations (most shouldn't be there), but what I'll do is use carroll's book to explain the games with massive quotes, then you read them, delete them from the section and use it to better describe the games. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statistics dont count before 1932?

I think you mean championships don't count before 1932. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, because here states on p. 3 that in 1932 "Official statistics were kept for the first time."
—Michael Jester (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No bro, it says: "Official statistics were kept [by the NFL] for the first time." But they do exist. Thats why Paul Robeson has one touchdown attributed to him, see that article and the nfl.com infobox thingie, but really he has at least 2 touchdown, see the Robey article. I emailed the NFL and databaseference.com to get them to fix it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stats existed. But the NFL did not official keep them until 1932. Newspapers and such kept stats, that's why there are some mistakes with older stats.
—Michael Jester (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun

The wikipedia thingie you referenced says the article has to be written in a professional fashion. I am not writing this article, you are. Professional means enjoyable to the reader that is likely to visit this page. So fun was a bad word, it's enjoyable to the consumer and provocative. Make believe you are a modern day Grantland Rice, obviously you don't wanna go down the lane of the Four Horseman of Notre Dame, but put some heart into it. This isn't brain surgery, its football, see here, the most famous piece of a game summary in the history of American football: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1130404/index.htm

I mean don't be a potatohead about it, but make it your article.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Making it my article would be WP:Ownership of articles. With the Grantland Rice, he was a sports-writer. He didn't write encyclopedias. Reading his thing, he uses phrases like "ripped and clashed" (just for one thing) which is against WP:NPOV (and criterion 1d). Wikipedia is suppose to be like a modern day Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. So with that being said, the article should first—and most importance—teach readers about the 1920 Akron Pros season. Then, if possible, the article can be exciting. The article won't get an "oppose" from a user if he/she doesn't think it's exciting to read. Taking a skim over 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season, I don't seem much "fun". I'm not trying to sound like a bad person, but it seems you're trying too hard to have an emphases on the fun of the article.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to emphasize is: try to show what the game was like back then. If you just write it like the 2008 steelers season, you are not educating the reader that the game was different back then. That being said, you haven't seen the defender article which basically says that the other chicago team tried to take out Pollard by punching him numerous times in the face. And you haven't read Carroll's book wherein ~~they call~~ the fans call him every slur in the book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably be busy again at work today, but I should be able to get the defender article at least. To get that Carroll book, I have to go to one library and request it, it's 5 levels underground so then someone has to go get it and bring it up. It takes like 20 minutes to get the book and they don't let you take it out of the library. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: the steelers article, I completely agree with spending 2 paragraphs on each game, as opposed to this article's one paragraph for each game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When I mean it's your article, I just mean that if you have done a great job so far, I think you can hammer it home. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I am involved in this article is that I am tracking down Paul Robeson's possible involvement in this season and I've noticed you have done a great job. I am missing only a primary source one game for the 1920 Pros and then I can debunk all authors of his involvement in the Pros. I have spent months tracking down whether or not Bell played for the Union Club of Phoenixville. I recently found a smoking gun and hammered and completely decimated that article. Go look at that article and what I did to it in the last 3 days.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well I wish you luck on your search, and I greatly appreciate what you've done with the article.
—Michael Jester (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Compare and contrast

I think we need to compare and contrast the 1920 season as compared to the modern NFL, to a limited extent. These need to be looked at although we can not go into too much. Thing is, the 1920 NFL season should not introduce too many generalities but we have to be specific because this is a specific article:

we should have a game in 1920 where the fans rushed onto the field and started pummeling the players - i could be confusing that with 1921
Unless it's a game that the Pros played it, I don't see why it should be in this article.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

agreed 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

there should have only been 3, perhaps 4, African-Americans in the league so when Pollard comes across an opponent who was African American we say...blah blah was an African American, 1 of the 2 others blah blah
Yeah, I have a sentence in legecy. Of course, a few more sentences have to be added to it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
equipment
What about it?
Umm, as far as equipment goes, when you remove that Thorpe picture and put the other Pros picture back in, then they will be worth 1,000 words, no need for equipment mention 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
number of officials and their positions, example: this game the renown blah, blah, was the head official this guy was the lineman and this guy was the judge; the standard makeup of officiating in games at the time, blah blah blah. We just need one notable official to bring that in. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There's {{Americanfootballbox}} which could be used.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
generally the modus operandi in which games were won - punting, example: "after a exchange of three sets of punts, blah blah, these guys had advanced their field position, blah blah blah, which was how games were won in 1920(citation here). No overkill just like 7 words. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
rules, specifically if you throw an incomplete pass in the end zone, the ball should have been turned over as a penalty
no hashmarks, so when the play was a sweep and the guy was tackled 2 yards from the sideline, the ball was spotted 2 yards from the right sideline
bankruptcy
teams breaking the rules and selling players amid season
Unless it involved the Pros, then it shouldn't be in.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, we already got the Bears breaking the rules w Driscoll, the Nash was probably not breaking the rules but one aspect will come in about it in legacy, the waiver rule 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
teams breaking the rules and hiring college players
Same as above.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed
the sentiment of the press against professional football
you don't play a full 60 minutes, you don't get full pay 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all have to be mentioned, by but game by game accounts fall short of educating the reader, as you put it, or be enjoyable and fun to the reader as I put it. Maybe difference is, I just think getting educated is fun and enjoyable 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

I dont mess w a legacy section until the end. We should get the game summaries up to snuff first. Then add a whole bunch of stuff to legacy, then look at it, then say, hey, that's not that important, lets delete it to keep the article the proper size. Game summaries is a grammar battle. Legacy is a content battle. I'm not up to snuff w legacy stuff anyway. I did write some stuff in Black players in American professional football. But most of my stuff is post 1933 when Bell entered the league w the eagles. I dont wanna write legacy stuff anyway cause I do not full comprehension of everything that was going on and how it impacted the history of the national football league. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Plain Dealer archives

If anyone has a login to the Plain Dealer, there are many articles listed here about the Pros' season.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I want to find the one missing week we do not have a contemporary source for. I'll see which week it is and get that one. I want a contemporary source for every game they played. This way I can be assured Robeson never played for them. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Thanks.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers oin circulation

How would I find out which newspapers were in circulation during this time period? I'm in research mode, now lol.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 08:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Err, good question. [3] One place to start. The other one is library of congress I linked to earlier. FYI, all newspapers prior to Dec 31, 1922 are in the public domain, or so it seems. Pretty much, those papers we don't have access to like the Akron Whatever it's called, if our online citations is like http:/whatever and they use The Akron Whatever on nov 2, 1920, then we need to do like the regular Wikipedia citation and tuck away (Akron Whatever, Nov 2, 1920) in the citation. Google and the National Archives, they are going to digitize every single solitary paper within the next few years. So like: <ref>Carroll 1992, p. 50 (Akron Whatever, November 2, 1920)</ref> This way 5 years from now, another editor can swap in the online citation real quick and go <ref>Akron Whatever, November 2, 1920, p. 15; cf. Carroll 1992, p. 50</ref> cf. as in see for comparison. Then we got an online citation in the ballgame, or i do <ref> Akron Whatever, etc.; cf. [http:youngston Pollard socrews 2 touchdowns], Carroll 1992, p. 50</ref> 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, look at how the first 70 citations are formatted in the Paul Robeson article. I try to stay away from more than one footnote per statement that every source agrees on if all the sources agree. It's just ugly to ready. I'll give an example sometime soon by changing some of this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the library of congress has papers online from the 1700s....sooo... 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting stuff

I am in research mode. Please try not to delete anything. Whether Pollard was sick or not is something I am investigating. The 1921 Akron Pros season depends on the 1920 Akron Pros season. If you are not familiar with the 1921 Akron Pros season, let me put it this way, the Akron Pros fans felt that Pollard dogged it during the 1921 season and so the Akron Pros management let Pollard go. Pollard is a hall of famer so we have to treat him with the respect he deserves; and Pollard was a very cool dude. Just put a hidden comment in that you think something is wrong or come here on the talk page. Leaving stuff in that is even blatantly wrong help my forgetful mind to research it better. Please, don't delete anything from the page...just add stuff. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no way this article can be considered GA stuff because it lacks citations from Carroll's book. Carroll's book is probably one of the most definitive sources on the 1920 Akron Pros season. So please slow down a bit. I don't watch your edits, I assume everything you do is perfect. Please slow down a bit.66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going off my past success. Love Always and James Inglis Hamilton are the two articles I expanded to GA status, and they're relatively short. IMHO, I feel the Offseason, Week 12, and Post season sections are complete, and every other section is like 75% complete. My last final is on Monday, so once that's done, I will be in research mode as well. We can hammer this article.

Offseason size looks okay, I really have gone into detail on it. And I am glad I switch that back to offseason like you had it, that's much better. But mandatory inclusion of the Indians going bankrupt is required. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We got a major problem with week 12. Like I said I got a hold of the book, Carroll is contending week 12 was not schedule. Carroll is claiming Halas pulled Pollard off of a game with the Union Club of Phoenixville (my hand's in that article very strongly because it impacts Bert Bell - long story) to create a week 12 game.

Post season is incorrect. Joseph Carr settled the dispute. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What is incorrect about the postseason?
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory inclusion of Joe Carr settling the dispute is required...he's the man who built the NFL :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's that located in a source? From the Akron Pros 1920, it says the managers voted.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Willis, Joe Carr 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Willis (2010), p. 134 says the league managers voted for the Cup as well.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 08:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am currently reading the preview of Carrol's book. Looks good so far.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I got a hold of Carrol's book again, he has basically nothing on the 1920 season. Since I am editing Robeson also and he played for the 1921 season I must have got confused. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is okay. There is some stuff on the 1920 season, so it's a plus. I added a few references. Do you know which book you might have got it confused with though?
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, i was confusing Carroll's description of the 1921 season with his description of the 1920 season 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Eagles247

I asked Eagles247 for advice on the article. Listed below are his comments:
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

~~The word "later" is used twice in the last paragraph of the lead, should combine sentences or reword.~~
~~"Ohio League" should be wikilinked in the lead.~~
"The Indians lost money" should be clarified in the Offseason section - it is unclear how or why they lost money, or why this led to their being sold.
~~"On August 20, 1920, a meeting was held at Ralph Hay's automobile attended by" - Is "Ralph Hay's automobile" a store or Mr. Hay's car?~~
~~The sentence after this one needs to be rewritten with the correct tense for the verbs (parallel structure).~~
"At the meeting in September, representatives of the Rock Island Independents, the Muncie Flyers, the Decatur Staleys, the Racine Cardinals, the Massillon Tigers, the Chicago Cardinals, the Rochester Jeffersons, and the Hammond Pros." - This is a sentence fragment.
~~The season schedule should be listed before the game summaries per other NFL team season articles.~~
~~"The Pros played nine games against APFA" - should read "The Pros played nine games against APFA teams"~~
~~"This came in week one and three where the Pros played against" - should read "This came in weeks one and three when the Pros played against~~
The Fritz Pollard paragraph in the Regular season section needs to be rewritten, especially the allegation that his skin color influenced his high contract salary.
~~"Touchdown" is spelled incorrectly in the Week 2 game summary~~
~~The crowd being excited is not particularly notable.~~
~~Week 5's italicized writing is not the same format as others.~~
~~Week 6's comment that the Bulldog fans were upset that their team did not score a single point is irrelevant and obvious.~~
~~"Once again, the Pros' shutout the Bulldogs" - Apostrophe is incorrect here.~~
~~"The mud made hindered the playing skills of both teams, and both teams could not do much offensively." - grammatically incorrect.~~
~~"The Staleys' Chamberlin attempted to injury Pollard twice in order to have Pollard out of the game." - grammatically incorrect.~~
~~Who is "Mr. Marshall"? If it cannot be determined from the source, it should be removed as confusing to the reader.~~
~~"The 1920 Akron Pros had one of only two African American players in the AFPA: Fritz Pollard." - colon should be replaced with a comma.~~
"It took until the 1970s for the NFL to remember its early vote on awarding the Akron Pros the championship." should be changed to "It was not until the 1970s that the NFL remembered its early vote on awarding the Akron Pros the championship."

Overall, this article has a very good chance to become a GA, but grammar and other content issues need to be resolved first. Of the six points of the Good Article criteria, the only point that needs to be resolved is the first one. Hope this helps, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the especially the allegation that his skin color influenced...that is still outstanding. 66.234.33.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

I agree with everything he wrote. But you fixed most everything already. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Same Picture 2x

[[File:Akron pros 1920.jpg|thumb|right|300px|1920 Akron Pros team photo]] I did not realize it but its the same dang picture 2x in the article. That's a nogo.

Is there a way to move that picture down vertically???? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I am going to put the pictures back to where you had them before I started editing. You had it right the first time. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I can not see the pictures, they are way way too small....and you have all that empty white space there. Utilize it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed-inline Robeson

Offseason section from the citation source:

"In October, the Elks Club of Akron sponsored a grand homecoming celebration for the world's champions and invited the Pros to a banquet in the hall at Exchange and Main streets. Well, most of them were invited.

African-American players Pollard and Paul Robeson, the future singing star, were saluted at a separate banquet by the Akron Merchants Association of Colored Business Men."

If you bring Robeson in their, then you are leaving open the idea that he played for the 1920 Akron Pros and I do not know what this "alumni" thing is in the article, but are you claiming Robeson played for the 1920 Akron Pros? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is perhaps 4,000 things written about Robeson. Probably almost every one says he played for the 1920 Akron Pros. I think we are missing one online source for one game, and if I have to drive to Cleveland to get a microfiche copy of ~~one~~ that one missing game I will. Do not mess w Robeson. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with Robeson, a major edit war broke out in the article on Wikipedia. I am talking about entire sections being wiped out by editors in the article and not little tiny dispute tags being placed in it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

~~and "future singing star", you need to pull that down asap...you need to stay away from what Robeson was identified as, all hell could break out here....66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)~~ My bad, that's the terrible citation source that uses that phrase, you're cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with dealing with Robeson in this article, some people have devoted almost their entire lives studying his life. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wise. But I am still looking for that last game's roster from a contemporary source. The library of congress link I gave you earlier allows you to search the newspapers by state. There are only 3 papers in ohio. But that does not mean they will not add more later. I find it near impossible that he played in 1920, but authors do make mistakes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And I checked all 3 papers, I did not come across them listing the game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I figured I would just throw his name out of the article because he wasn't involved with the team that year.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Infobox NFL season

Can we make Ranney and Neid the owners? They were the owners. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I don't know why I never added it before.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Off Season

"The two changed the team name to the Akron Pros, as they hoped to achieve a better record and crowd."

That needs to be rephrased. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This should be 3 paragraphs. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Rules...I would like to see it mentioned that the games were using college rules. Also, The refererees and linesman are listed. Let's take a research some of them guys; they could be hall of famers. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it needs to be three paragraphs, not 4. Oh, I said that already. Maybe it got lost in the weeks controversy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved stuff to make it 3 paragraphs. I move stuff not to its final destination, but to get it out where I do not think it belongs. I think only 3 paragraphs are warranted in the offseason. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"a membership fee of $100 was set" ...we need to delete that, it was bogus and had nothing to do with the Akron Pros. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It showed how the Pros got into the league. Def need to keep it (Yes, I know nobody paid it).
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regular Season

"During the season, Pollard was treated with disrespect because of being African American."

This needs to be thought about. I probably would not even put that there. In whatever game racism rears its ugly head, then you say what actually happened and why it happened. The phrase "treated with disrespect" is a colluquialism. It's not a professional literary style.66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to explain why the teams had to send in the list of players that they used to Ranney, its the Reserve clause. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does "cf." mean?

OK I'm probably missing something here, but what exactly does "cf." mean? I'm assuming it means cited from, and this is the only article I've seen that does this.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 07:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

...see for comparison , slightly different statements by different authors. I use it so if one author says derek jeter batted .331 another .332 and another .333 I am not gonna sully up the article with 3 citations. Davis shows Halas basically sitting down and drawing up the schedule for his team. Peterson says the NFL did not set the schedule. Therefore if I use a cf, then I can say each team created their own schedules without seeing what the other teams did. I am the only one that I have ever seen use it on Wikipedia though. It just means I am aware of all sources that I can find, I limit it to 4 sources. This way no one reverts my edits or if they do and its such a minor change, I'll rotate the cf.'s around to a different order to satisfy the other editor. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Never heard of something like that before. Seems odd for me, but that's probably because I'm new to it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 14:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I had 8 citations for what Bert Bell's name actually was and like 6 citations for what his date of birth was and like 5 citations for what the date of his death was. It's not fun to read, it's yucky. Generally speaking, I have 264 citations in the Bell article, I really need to rearrange things and wipe out 80 of them. It's just an ugly article.

There is no dispute out there about the Akron pros (nor Bert Bell because I am the only editor). So for instance: "and the trophy that would be awarded to the league champions"[4][5][6] makes it look like there's some kind of dispute. There's no dispute in this article between you and I about that. Generally speaking, all the players were dead before we were born. All the cf. means is "look dude, I read this too, I've done proper professional research." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Offseason v. Regular season

Throw that pittsburgh steelers ga article under the bus; this articles has vastly more complicated things to deal w then the steelers offseason. put pollard and nash rejoining the team in the opening of the regular season. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

besides 3 paragraphs in offseason and 3 paragraphs regular season looks prettier. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Game Summaries

1st question is why is Week 2 not Week 1?

Bye week.
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But no games counted that week, so how is that a bye week?66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

you should reevaluate bye week Willis hammers it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

the first nfl game in history happened in your week 2 (Willis 2010)66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Willis (2010) says because I do not have it, but reference 10 states that the Rock Island Independents and the St. Paul Ideals played a game in week one. That's what I was going on.
—Michael Jester (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the article was at the very least misleading or it is extremely outdated, no biggie 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the game summaries here that you can not read. I can't put the entire articles here it might be copyright violation. If you do not want to edit the article because you can see all the articles in their entirety, then I will start adding to the article, but I don't want to. I still am hoping you go to a college campus one weekend and speak to their librarians.

If you post an abstract, per se, of the newspaper, then yeah, I'll edit the article. Also, I have finals week this week; it ends on the 19th. Once that's done I can go to UMD's library and see a librarian.

Off-topic thing, but have you considered creating an account?
—Michael Jester (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to change the weeks to begin at week 1 today. I should have time to edit at work. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't. There's already a source saying the Pros began on week 2 of the season.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. See Willis p. 127: "On October 3, 1920, the newly formed APFA, the forerunner of the NFL - played their first full weekend of games. Although some APFA teams got into action as early as September of that year, the first meeting between teams listed as APFA members occurred on October 3. On that dayte, the Dayton Triangles hosted Joe Carr's Columbus Panhandles, winning 14-0, and the Rock Island Independents hosted the Muncie Flyers, winning 45-0.

(New Paragraph) Here's where it gets interesting; which on of those games was the first in NFL history? A glance at the map of the midwest will show Dayton is in the Eastern time zone and Rock Island is in the Central. So Dayton being an hour earlier has been given credit for playing the first ever game in NFL history."

The first game in NFL History was Dayton vs. Panhandles, on October 3, 1920, week 1. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so if you're going to claim there was no bye week for the Pros in week one, then you're going against reference 13, which is used 13 times. So then you would have to find another source to replace all 13 occasions of that source. Then, we also have to compare sources. Your source is by Chris Willis--a football historian; reference 13 is done by NFL History with the help of the PRFA. Pro-Football-Reference.com also lists the September 26, 1920 game between Rock Island and St. Paul as week 1.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Calm down bro. We will work this out. What Willis is saying is that the NFL now officially recognizes the first game in the history of the NFL as on October 3, 1920 and it's Dayton vs. Panhandles. There's no reason to throw out source 13 in its entirety. As you can plainly see the St. Paul Ideals were not recognized by the league. So it was an exhibition game. The teams scheduled exhibition games to make money. Your source is just outdated in that aspect. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if I came across as rude. I was just trying to prove my point. If that game was an exibition, then how come PFR and even the NFL list it in the official standings?

No apologizes necessary. I'll check your links tomorrow. You've worked very hard on this article so I am not going to do anything without your approval :) We'll sort this out. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Weeks contraversy between Michael and me, ip

Let's put week 1 as week 1. As far as the preseason games go. We got Willis smashing your Week 2 thingie. Your source just happens to be wrong, that's all. Preseason games would not be considered week 1 in the NFL. Go ask Eagles247. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from above:

See Willis p. 127: "On October 3, 1920, the newly formed APFA, the forerunner of the NFL - played their first full weekend of games. Although some APFA teams got into action as early as September of that year, the first meeting between teams listed as APFA members occurred on October 3. On that dayte, the Dayton Triangles hosted Joe Carr's Columbus Panhandles, winning 14-0, and the Rock Island Independents hosted the Muncie Flyers, winning 45-0.

(New Paragraph) Here's where it gets interesting; which on of those games was the first in NFL history? A glance at the map of the midwest will show Dayton is in the Eastern time zone and Rock Island is in the Central. So Dayton being an hour earlier has been given credit for playing the first ever game in NFL history."

The first game in NFL History was Dayton vs. Panhandles, on October 3, 1920, week 1.66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first game "between teams listed as APFA members" was Dayton vs. Columbus. But remember, teams played non-APFA games, too.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

But week 1 in the NFL is for regular season games. And, btw, I don't take things personally if you revert me edits w pictures or whatever. My edits just give a different viewpoint. I more than welcome you reverting my edits. That being said, week 1 is week 1. I invite you to reevaluate your numbering of the weeks. :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy. Week 1 is for regular season games. You are not utilizing a full and fair reading of all sources. You have made up "bye week". There was no such thing. If you want, let's get Eagles to arbitrate this, although I am hoping you will change your opinion without bothering him. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not that upset about it. I mean, there is a lot more important things in the world than week 1, but I would like to see this resolved. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Having your edits reverted can be demoralizing, I have not reverted any of your edits, as far as I know. I hope you reconsider the week 1 thingie stuff. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to slap a diputed inline tag on your use of week 1 as a bye week, tomorrow. There was no such thing and you are making it up. I invite you to reevaluate your position. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind. You have unilaterally chosen to make up a bye week in the NFL when no such thing existed. So i have chosen to call you out for a blatant lie. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, look. NFL.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com clearly states the 1920 Rock Island Independents had a 6-2-2 record. Their first game was Sunday, September 26, 1920. The next week---October 3---is when Rock Island played next. October 3 is the same exact date the Pros played their first game. Thus, RII played in week 1, and the Pros did not. Plain and simple.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am not feeling well today. But, I will check out your links. I have at least 20 books that say Robeson played for the 1920 Akron Pros (which actually, we are missing one contemporary source so he very well may have - but I am ignoring those books at this time.). Nfl.com has Robeson only scoring 1 touchdown. But we clearly show a link where he scored 2 touchdowns (maybe for some official reason the nfl does not count it as 2 touchdowns? - I don't know). You know this guy Chris Willis is a serious dude. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to go above and beyond the old sources. You have to rule out badly written and incorrect sources by utilizing a full and fair reading of all sources. The best source is Willis. The first game was on October 3. I removed the dispute tag. It serves no purpose other than to antagonize you which was really frustration on my part. You will eventually come around to my thinking I believe. So, there's no reason to cause enmity between you and I. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I sent an email to the nfl and profootball reference about the 2 touchdowns for robeson. One touchdown was a fumble recovery. Maybe that did not count as a touchdown? How am I supposed to know that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your links: "NFL.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com clearly states the 1920 Rock Island Independents had a 6-2-2 record." Who cares what their record is. I just want to know what was the first game of the regular season

"Their first game was Sunday, September 26, 1920" Neither link: NFL.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com substantiates that.

I would like you to provide a source that says, like I do, that the first game in the History of the NFL was ... as I have done it with Willis it. And it was in Week 1, on October 3, 1920. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Everybody is wrong sometimes. Your sources are outdated. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not, in no way, saying that the first game between two AFPA teams was October 3, 1920. I am not disputing that. Now you and I both know that all games were not scheduled between AFPA teams; some were against non-AFPA teams. Hell, even the Pros did.

"Who cares about what their record is." Well, uh, since they played the first game between non-AFPA teams, it matters. I was thinking you would have been smart enough to actually click the 1920 Rock Island link. Here it is, which clearly states they had a win on September 29, 1920. That's why I was telling you about their record of 6-2-2. Now those are sources claiming the first game was September 29. If it wasn't, then the Independents' record would be 5-2-2, but it's not. ~~

So, to restate again: the first game that counted for the 1920 AFPA season was September 29, 1920, and the first game between two AFPA teams was October 3, 1920.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I get your point. You are not tethering the 1920 akron pros season to the 1920 nfl season. I do not at all agree with that, but I can deal with that. However, you then have to explicitly state that to avoid confusing the reader (note:you are going against all modern convention when you use your terms week #). You are dealing more with Ohio football than the NFL. Willis has another book on ohio football in that era. "The season of AFPA teams was not singularly devoted to its future incarnation of the NFL and thus week 1 was....The present view of the NFL was that week 1 began on October 3, 1920." something along those lines. I still strongly disagree with this implementation because those other teams are defunct and ~~meaningless~~ insignificant in history. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem you have is the 1920 NFL season, the 1921 NFL season, the 1922 NFL season, the 1923 NFL season...the 193x season....at what point on Wikipedia are we going to says week 1 was week 1. You have just dumped the problem on every other editor for every team for the next 20 years. Every other editor from 1920 until 194x has to decide what a team's season was because they played exhibition games for over 10-20 years. It's just an absolute nightmare what you are doing with your week # implementation. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe get another editor to review this. I could not agree any less with you than I do. Week 1 should be Week 1 in the NFL. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Until the NFL banned NFL teams from playing semi-pro teams, I think some where around 1940, ever editor has to now deal what a season constitues. That's a disaster. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make an argument that the 1920 rock island independents season week 1 game was such and such, then do that in that article. Even independent of the nfl, the 1920 akron pros season week 1 began in their week 1 game. And their week 1 game just happened to be week 1 of the nfl season. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. You keep talking about exhibition, but the September 26 game is not one. If it was, the Independents' record would have been 5-2-2. But it's not. It's 6-2-2. And by saying your week 1 is the real week one takes out the Independents' first game.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

alright, put it in. But I want a very strong explanation written into the body of the article to explain it. I want it to be a two sentence explanation and I would like you to deal explicitly with Willis and use Chris Willis' name in the explanation in the body of the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"While Chris Willis asserts the first game in the history of the nfl was October 3....the previous game on September 26, ....has been entered is still extant in the official records of the NFL as a game that counted in the standings." something like that.

And get rid of "bye week" ...put in "no game scheduled" or something like that. "Bye week" is way out of context and is an anachronism. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

bye weeks were put in for..............what else...so the NFL and its franchises could make more money 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

otherwise, in the History of the National Football League I would be allowed to ~~right~~write the first by week in the History of the NFL was on September 26, 1920...which is silly. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

and its "...football historian Chris Willis" when you write his name because that's a serious dude 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you see my point. I changed the bye week; you were right on that. However, there's no need to put in that explanation in the article. The first game doesn't--and will never--involve the Pros, so why should we have it in here? That's for the 1920 season article. If that's the case, we might as well talk about the first pass, the first touchdown, the first penalty, etc.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a reason for an explanation because it's confusing. Willis explicitly states the first game in the NFL is on October 3rd. Now if the previous games count in the record, than those are the first games in the history of the NFL. You are going flat out against a professional sports historian. Someway you have to explain that better. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can tuck it in a footnote like I do with Bell if you want. But you have to explain it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think you will be eventually proven wrong. If you look at Robeson's nfl stats, it shows only 1 touchdown. If you go to the article, you see I wrote he scored 2 touchdowns because of the 2 articles from 2 different papers covering the game. So, I ignore nfl.com (one of the touchdowns was a fumble recovery, which may actually not be considered a touchdown under the rules back then???, but I know of no such rule so I could be wrong too). I obviously could care less which was the first game of the season. It's just you called Willis out. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

in fact, I will put it in one of the footnotes. I of course have a cold today and I was in the library looking up stuff on the new york public library and the schomburg and robeson all day yesterday...so I'm kind of chillin today. For the record, I have like professional authors that say Bert Bell's birthday was such and such a date, I, after months of research, hammer them. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not be proven wrong, because I am not wrong. Plain and simple. The first game between two AFPA teams was October 3, 1920. Even Chris Willis stated, "the first meeting between teams listed as APFA members occurred on October 3." If you want to debate between the first game appeared on October 3, why aren't you saying anything about the Pros? They played a game on October 3? Oh wait. They played a non-AFPA team. Which every team did in 1920. And the Rock Island Independents schedules a game September 26, 1920 against a non-AFPA team. They won. This game is counted for in the standings. I have no idea what else I'm suppose to say to try and get you to change your mind.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 19:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if you or I agree; the idea is to come up with a general consensus so the article can advance. I wrote about the explanation and followed your guidelines. Generally speaking, large organizations do not rapidly change as Wikipedia articles, which I am sure you understand. If the NFL comes down with a decree that says non-AFPA games should be expunged from the final regular season standings. Then we have week 1 occurs when the Willis' first game occurred. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If I was writing the article, I would still tether week 1 to October 3rd. But I honestly could care less. There is not necessarily a right or wrong; its just different viewpoints about what's more important.

FYI, I rearrange things chronologically. I think that Fritz Pollard stuff needs to be moved and some of it wiped out. It's not important that Fritz was very highly paid I think; that can go his bio. And him getting beat up during games can be mentioned whenever we first find him getting beat up. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, Willis has the Akron Pros record as 6-0-3 p.131. I would keep an eye on nfl.com. They might be changing the pros record someday.66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just found it, Chris Willis has been head of the research library of NFL films since 1996 and is the resident historian. I don't care one way or another who is right or wrong. But that dude is a serious dude, see p. 461 of the Carr book. This is a fight between you and Willis, not you and me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Pros were 6-0-3 in AFPA games and 8-0-3 in all games. Remember, not all games were against AFPA teams.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

but willis is point is, those other games do not count unless you are completely untethering the pros from the nfl. if you are, then you have to remove all stuff about the nfl in the article. don't get upset, both of our positions are logical and rational given the sources we each choose to weigh the most heavily. i don't have a problem w your interpretation or what the article says. the point being is this: is nfl.com the last word on the official records of the nfl? how do we know. What i do strongly believe is pro-football reference dot com in no way shape or form compares to Willis. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

to follow up, you would really need to get willis other book and then declare that the Pros were a hybrid team - which would actually be kinda cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

there is no right or wrong, we just go with what we got and come to a consensus. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

if it was up to me, I'd walk into Canton, go to the history section, find the 1920 standings book, and rip the pages out of it for the interleague games and then change nfl.com to reflect those games as not occurring according to the nfl and then send you an email, look at nfl.com now. :) That's not going to happen in a $20 billion (?) dollar industry. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

since you are a historian guy from old time dudes, some old time historians publish a errata section in their book - which I love. Basically, they write "this author say x, which is totally not true because of a, b, c, and d" and "this other author said y, which is totally not true because of e, f, g, and h" - Willis did not do this; so we got him over a barrel for not disputing nfl.com 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Peterson explicitly states the all games counted. The process ended after 1920. So does Willis later in his book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Week 1

~~If someone scored a safety in the first quarter, then keep it chronologically accurate. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~

Did.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Week 2

This needs to be rephrased: "Sweetland was hired by coach Elgie Tobin to be a line substitute, but the coach decided to play Sweetland this game." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Throughout the game, Nesser scored three touchdowns"...During the game ....or total rewrite. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Week 3

~~This needs to be rephrased:"The Pros' defense was so dominant that the Celts did not get a single first down all game long." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~ This needs to be rephrased: "Sweetland was hired by coach Elgie Tobin to be a line substitute, but the coach decided to play Sweetland this game." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Week 4

~~"Nash apparently grabbed" ...this is editorializing. Just say Nash grabbed 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~ This needs to be rephrased:"The Pros' defense was so dominant that the Celts did not get a single first down all game long." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Celts did not get a single first down all game long." ....rephrase to "...down the entire game", please. or "down in the game" ...but remove the word "long" 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Week 5

~~Colloquialism: "With four games under their belt," 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~

Week 6

Canton: need more contemporary sources.

Week 7

No major complaints. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Week 8

No major complaints. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Week 9

~~Needs total rewrite. This game was covered probably nationwide.66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~ Missing contemporary source.

Week 10

Canton game: Needs total rewrite. This game was covered probably nationwide.66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Dayton game: Missing contemporary source

Week 11

Missing Contemporary source 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Week 12

Chicago Defender in an article entitled "Fritz Pollard Shows Old Time Form as Akron and Staleys Pros Play Tie" Dated December 18, 1920 on p. 6 by Frank Young [the defender was an African American weekly. So their article is much, much bigger than other newspapers the PRFA uses.]

Fritz returned to his hometown and Driscoll was also kinda of on his own turn because he went to NorthWestern and they were the stars of the game
muddy game
the players were household names from their college days
12,000 fans, 2,000 of them came from Fritz's hometown to see him play
12,000 fans? Seems a little high, considering the sources on the page already claim 3,000.
—Michael Jester (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Every source said 12k you must have gotten confused with the Buffalo game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did.
a poor ruling by the officials cost Akron the game during their march down the field - ineligible receiver, the tackles had gone in motion and they were replaced by the ends who were then replaced by the back, so the tackles had become backs
the other Chicago dailies did not report this fact
Chamberlain a former Nebraska player, "in tackling Pollard twice attempted by roughness to 'put him out of the game.' Slugging was indulged in freely and the Staleys were only penalized for being offside."
the first period favored Akron
staleys outpunted the pros at the beginning and then after a punt return by Pollard backed up the Pros to their own 4 yard line, they began to go on the offensive. 25 yard gain by pollard and a couple of end runs ball on Staleys 22 and 1st down. 2 incomplete passes and what should have been (this is me) an incomplete pass in the end zone (which was a penalty back then) forced an automatic turnover to the Staleys
not much more action in 1st period, Driscoll was subbed in at start of 2nd period
a series of runs by Driscoll netted a total of 20 yards but they punted
pollard returned it 22y to akrons 42
pass to nash, and 1 run by king and 1 run by pollard brought into Staleys territory again
another, probably incomplete pass in the end zone turned the ball over at the staleys 30 and nothing happened the rest of the half
3rd quarter driscoll got 15 yard gain then an into
a couple of punts on each side let to a brouhaha between Chamberlain and Pollard with Fred being the 3rd man in because the officials let Chamberlain get away with dirty play
"Dutch" (I don't know who Dutch is) got a 25 yard play that put the ball on Akron's 40. After runs by Paddy and Sternaman, 1st down Akron 30. Pollard made a touchdown saving tackle on Sternaman at Akron's 18.
play halted to get Sternaman dry shoes.
Sternaman to Pearce gained a few yards.
Sternaman missed the field goal and neither team had storing chance the rest of the way
they kept trying to pass the ball the rest of the 3rd quarter but lots of incompletions
staleys started off on their 20 after a punt received
35 yard pass to Halas then Sternaman punted to Pollard
akron began march, here was the poor officiating, an exchange of punts, game over

"Had the field been dry instead of a mire of mud caused by Saturday's reain, there is no telling what might have been pulled off. One thing the game did tell and that was this Professional Football is here to stay." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll add it now.
—Michael Jester (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing i want is the defender has said in its coverage ~~legacy~~ the game had arrived...then in legacy we can knock that down and say, no it didnt work out like the defender said it would 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you need to mention it was a bungled call by the officials that cost Akron the game 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems a little biased, don't you think?
—Michael Jester (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We have to go with what we got. I will check the next 7 days after they printed that article to see if the Chicago Tribune replied, because the Defender, generally speaking, called them out for not reporting it. I do not think the Tribune will respond to the Defender because the previous summer there were gigantic race riots in Chicago in 1919. Scores of people were killed in the fighting. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, we don't judge professional authors, they print it, we print it. We take everything at face value. Now......between you and I, did 2,000 fans show up from Pollard's hometown, of course not. But they printed it, we report it. Rembember, content must be verifiable. We just fall on the sword if its not true. This allows people that are interested to futher investigate. We do not arbitrate truth. We utilize verifiability. Now.....if you want to a professional article/featured article then you have to further investigate. But remember, I am now the one that has to go to the library and look at the next 7 days in the Chicago Tribune. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Since your library is somewhat no good, let me explain it this way. There is a few encyclopedias out there in librarys, see the Bell article, one of them is Who's Who. So they print a biography of Bell. That is not a be all and an end all of the subject. It lists a bibliography and allows the scholar to further investigate the matter. If you want to exclude stuff you think is biased or inaccurated, you need to write a book and not an encyclopediac article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Are primary role is to determine what is important enough to go in the article and where (i.e. introduction and legacy) and not to censor or to discount professional authors. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion, if they bungled the call and it cost Akron the game, is it important enough to go in the article, Yes. Is there any source that contradicts the professional authors opinion, No. So it goes in the article. Case closed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Added.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This week's game, if my memory serves me right, was an impromptu event. See the Bell article, but basically Pollard rushed back from a game he was to play in for the Union Club of Phoenixville against Thorpe's Canton Bulldogs because Haley wanted the game and because Pollard was a Chicago native...it's in Carroll's book. I'll revisit it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

~~::::::::Note, Willis has the Akron Pros record as 6-0-3 p.131 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)~~

Post season

Can I put in that the awarding of the championship to Akron was something that Halas would rue for the rest of his life? The point being, Halas is an immortal figure in pro football. He's not great or legendary, he's immortal. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It really would be hard to place in his biography. The biography is very, very, very, very downlevel. The dude just did too much in his life. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ehh, I think that may be pushing it. It might be best to put that in 1920 Decatur Staleys season.00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

What is it about the 1920 Akron Pros Season that makes it notable?

"The 1920 Akron Pros season was the franchise's inaugural season with the American Professional Football Association (APFA)" ... okay
"... and twelfth total season as a team." ..no, not notable.

First sentence needs rewrite 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Second sentence

"The season concluded with the team winning the Brunswick-Balke Collender Cup for finishing first place in the APFA." Too detailed and an extremely obscure fact is included in this sentence. Very few people know what the Brunswick-Balke Collender Cup signified. The first ~~too~~ two sentences need to be reevaluated and be more general and more abstract.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph

"The Pros entered the season coming off a 5–5 record in 1919 as the Akron Indians in the Ohio League. They opened their regular season with a blow out win over the Wheeling Stogies en route to a 8–0–3 record. "

first sentence too detailed
How so?
"blow out win" is a colloquialism, and still too detailed
Removed "blown out"
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Third sentence

"A meeting was held by the APFA to determine a winner. " For what year, 1919, or 1920? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

1920. It says so the sentence before.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

too fast

You jumped on that pretty quickly. I will stop. I went into the fourth sentence and the next paragraph. But since you are on the ball, then I will stop. Good job replying!66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Check your punctation

"The Decatur Staleys as well as the Buffalo All-Americans demanded the title because of the amount of wins Rip King and Fritz Pollard were named first-team all APFA and Alf Cobb was named second-team all APFA by the Rock Island Argus."

First off, the punctuation should be (with the ambiguous reference to their tally of wins or their win-loss record included): "The Decatur Staleys, as well as the Buffalo All-Americans, demanded the title because of their amount of wins (their win-loss record?). Rip King and Fritz Pollard were named first-team all APFA and Alf Cobb was named second-team all APFA by the Rock Island Argus."

missing a period, and missing 2 commas. Still watch your 1919 and 1920 references. It's not clear to me and I am well versed in their 1919 and 1920 season. Keep it tight. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworded, and stuff. Commas aren't needed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

commas are needed. Reevaluate again please. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, dude. "The Decatur Staleys and the Buffalo All-Americans demanded the title" does not require a comma. Decatur Staleys and Buffalo All-Americans are two teams, and both teams are a part of the subject. If it was three teams, however, then it would require a comma. But since there is only two teams a comma is not suppose to be there.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 07:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was going to suggest, that you change it to "and" 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Halas

I think you are making a mistake in not including Halas' regrets over the 1920 season. You are presuming that there will someday be a 1920 Chicago Bears (Staley's) season article on Wikipedia. It's really not going to happen. I agree with you in a perfect world, then you are absolutely correct, Halas' regret should not be in this article. But Halas is an immortal figure in the NFL and the reality is only you have a chance to introduce that fact to the world. It would be extremely difficult to introduce that in a Halas biography because he is so immortal. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to reevaluate your position. There is no such thing as a perfect article on Wikipedia. If someone does write a 1920 Chicago Bears season article, then by all means it should be deleted from this article forthwith. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already the article 1920 Decatur Staleys season.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right, and I am wrong. Good job 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Rewrite it. Just rewrite it for rewrites sake. Maybe you'll like it a different way. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

At most, it should be 2 paragraphs. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In week X

In week 3, In week 4, In week 5, In week 8, In week 9, In week 11,

needs rephrasing, boring to read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and change it yourself. It's good enough for GA-class.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 07:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but if I change it, then other sentences might depend on what I write. I might end up changing the whole paragraph which might upset you. I would much rather you change it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you time to think about your be bold statement. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I do rewrite it, and I do change the entire paragraphs, then the other game summaries might look different or feel out of place. I would much rather you rewrite it because then it's all your style. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just don't rewrite the whole paragraph lol. Just change the first few words. It's not that hard.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 11:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, too dangerous, you edit the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1920 Akron Pros season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 23:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be the one reviewing this article, will try to complete the review sometime tonight. Secret ^account 23:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article needs mild work, mainly with prose before becoming an GA as there was some sentences that were confusing, plus I have concerns about the main source of this article.

"The Indians lost money because of the constant poor performance" The season before they were 5-5 which isn't poor. Anything I'm missing?
- The team used to have one- or two-loss seasons and were constantly winning the Ohio League Championship. After 1915, the team never won. This is what I think the source means by saying the poor performance. I've added some information about it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"The two changed the team name to the Akron Pros, as they hoped to achieve a better record and crowd" How would the name change will achieve a better record and crowd?
- Can't find a source saying how.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"became united as the" Weren't they united as the Ohio League already? Reword
- Reworded.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"At the meeting in September, held at Ralph Hay's Hupmobile showroom" Is Hay an important figure in the formation of the league?
- Yeah, he was the owner of the Canton Bulldogs. I'll add it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sentence that starts with "The following was achieved" run-on sentence and does it has to go into detail? Some of the sentence also isn't properly explained such as "a committee to draft a constitution was named" I don't understand what it means? League rules?
- I've taken some thing out, and reworded it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"In week three, the Pros played against the Panhandles" "In week four the Pros played against" and so on. It becomes repetitive, reword.
- Reworded most of it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
line substitute, but the coach decided to play Sweetland this game? What's a line substitute?
- Reworded to backup.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
the Pros defeated the Tigers 7-0 to keep their undefeated streak alive? Season is a better word than streak.
- Fixed.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Pollard dislocated his right shoulder... Was it a major injury? Any impact to the season? He's back by week 8 so.
- The source doesn't show if he did or not play, so I don't know the severity of the injury.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"Bulldogs were still upset from the "fluke" loss earlier in the season" The word fluke is unexplained.
- Removed the word fluke.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Why was Nash sold?
- Added why.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"The game could have been classified as a World Championship" How?
- Added why.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"who were tired from the game yesterday" What game?
- Added what game.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Did the league do something against Halas for the Driscoll incident?
- Surprisingly, no.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"ineligible receiver penalties: the tackles went into motion, who were replaced by the ends, who were replaced by the back." I'm completely lost on the meaning here.
- Removed that part. It was confusing to me, too.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"However, the NFL does not now recognize the Pros as having been world champions" Why? Also the word now is unneeded there.
- That was put there by some other user. IDK what he was even talking about, so I just removed it.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the All-AFPA award by the Rock Island Argus considered a major award back then?
- Yes. Pro-Football-Reference.com uses it to define the 1920 All-Pro team.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Chicago Defender reported that the refereeing was biased towards Decatur. An reason why would be helpful.
- Since I don't have the article, I can't read it to see if there was a reason why.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is this an high-quality reliable source. Professional Football Researchers Association is extremely similar to SABR with contributors that are well-known and highly respected historians in their area, and some self-published amateur authors with poorly written or poorly researched work. This particular article doesn't source an bibliography page, plus it came from an era (1982) in which historical sports researching wasn't as strict with fact-checking as it is now. I rarely use historical sources relating to American Sports before 1990 because of that reason, unless the author is/was an well-known expert. This essay is a bit difficult to verify. Sentences like "Bailey was a sensation at center, and quarterback Harris ran the team smoothly and returned punts like a wizard" doesn't help the cause for the source.
- The author, Bob Carroll, founded the PFRA and heavily contributed for The Coffin Corner for several years. The last article of his I've seen was 1996. He has also written multiple books, listed here.
Every other source is OK, and I don't see any close paraphrasing concerns. Images are all in public domain.

Secret ^account 05:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Secret, for taking time to review this article. I have addressed a few before going to bed. I will [probably] finish them tomorrow morning.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok passed Secret ^account

Intro

I still want 2 paragraphs for the intro. Can I have a shot at it? You can always revert my edit. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

Any info that Paul Robeson ever suffered a concussion is of great importance. I have seen no evidence that he ever did. If anyone ever comes across info that he did, then I suggest that recent events dictate that you act upon it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, there's a battle upon why Robeson attempted suicide and there's some specious sources and some biased sources. So...66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert Smith collection

National Archives as a source

League Park where they played

Peer review

Super rough draft

Under construction

Edit filter is blocking my week 5 additions, I tried 4 times

Edit filter blocked my removal of stuff

Notes section

Preseason

You are up to bat

Introduction guidelines for featured articles

Left End and Right Ends and Tackles

Excessive Use of Same Source

American American

Citations needed

Disputed inline

Summarizing major changes

Fritz Pollard Hall of Fame needs to be in the introduction

Jim Thorpe picture

Bert Bell

Statistics dont count before 1932?

Further Reading

Fun

Compare and contrast

Legacy

Plain Dealer archives

Newspapers oin circulation

Deleting stuff

Comments from Eagles247

Same Picture 2x

Pictures

Disputed-inline Robeson

Introduction

Infobox NFL season

Off Season

Regular Season

What exactly does "cf." mean?

Offseason v. Regular season

Game Summaries

Weeks contraversy between Michael and me, ip

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

Week 11

Week 12

Post season

First sentence

Second sentence

Second paragraph

Third sentence

too fast

Check your punctation

Halas

Intro

In week X

GA Review

Intro

Paul Robeson