Talk:1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season

Comment

OK, somebody tagged this page for tone, but didn't leave any comments about it? Helpful. Anyway, I think I see what they mean. Most of the Buccaneer season pages lack references and have a tone more appropriate for a fansite than for an encyclopedia. They also have first-draft-quality writing. I'm working on this, and 1979 and 1976 are my top priorities. Along with 1987, which is largely complete. Resources are a little difficult to come by for the Bucs' earlier years: the relevant newspapers' online archives don't go back that far, and the same for the A.P. coverage that the N.Y. Times provides. Available material is going to be almost totally limited to the St. Petersburg Times and Sports Illustrated, but I'll dig up what I can and put together a good page. With all thanks and respect to the original author.GuySperanza (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all objectionable material, at least from the "Season Schedule" section. Any more issues, please post them here or tag the page as necessary.GuySperanza (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on September 7, 2009. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

I'll be reviewing this article for GA quality.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

• The sentence, The Bucs doubled the size of their scouting staff from two to four, hoping to get more mileage out of the later rounds of the draft. Greg Roberts was the 1978 Outland Trophy winner. The Bucs had him rated as the best lineman in the draft, and expected him to have been long gone by the time the Bucs picked in the second round, doesn't make sense to me. Try re-wording it.
• The undefeated Bucs lost on the road to the winless New York Giants. Is a fragment.
• McKay instead wound up booed after a one-point loss in which three kick attempts were blocked. Should it be wound up being booed?
• The sentences, Williams tearfully accepted blame for the loss. His five-interception performance left coach McKay considering either benching him or avoiding pass plays, could be combined somehow.

Manual of Style compliance: Main problem is that there are multiple links to one article. Only wikilink on the first occasion of something (like Larry Mucker).

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: The online sources need to be formatted the others are fine.

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

• is [1] a reliable source?

No original research:

• until they advanced to the NFC Championship with a 24-17 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles. There, with several key players injured, they held the Los Angeles Rams to nine points, but were held scoreless on offense to end their season one game short of the Super Bowl. is unreferenced.
• The win left the Bucs at midseason having already achieved their highest win total ever. is unreferenced.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

• The lead uses the word, bumbling which sounds like POV to me.
• Change every occasion of "Bucs'" to "Buccaneers" or "Tampa Bay"
• L.A. should be either Los Angeles or Rams
• a game marked by numerous officiating errors and a malfunctioning game clock isn't NPOV.
• The Bucs' inept, penalty-prone play is not a NPOV.

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?: Pass

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

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

• There are no images but that's fine, however it would help if you could add some but like I said it's perfectly fine to have none.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Nice overall work, I will put this on hold to allow for the changes to be made.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes, and I've got a few questions:

Manual of Style compliance: Main problem is that there are multiple links to one article. Only wikilink on the first occasion of something (like Larry Mucker).

I've been treating each section as independent of the rest of the article, so I've been linking the first appearance of a name in each section. That's wrong? I can go back and take those out. I'm thinking that in such a long page, if somebody wants more information on a player, it might be difficult to scroll up and find where his name's linked at. I could take out all the player name links outside of the roster.

It's all the same article and despite the different sections. The first occurance is the only one that needs to be linked.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• The undefeated Bucs lost on the road to the winless New York Giants. Is a fragment.
  

I don't understand that. If you take out the modifiers, it breaks down to "The Bucs lost to the Giants", which is a complete sentence. Am I missing something? I don't see how that's a fragment.

You're right. Re-reading it, it sounds nothing like a fragment must've just been my first opinion of it.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• is [2] a reliable source?
  

I believe so. They seem to be well-researched, especially for the roster information I use that site as a source for. They're the only site that has information like what jersey number a player wore in a specific season, and draft pick swaps. The trade information usually also turns up when I comb newspaper articles, so it's verified that way. I've never seen their information contradicted, and only once have I found a detail they missed. Jon Gruden likes the site, and he and his dad both coached the team, so that's a good sign.

I'll take your word for it.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• until they advanced to the NFC Championship with a 24-17 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles. There, with several key players injured, they held the Los Angeles Rams to nine points, but were held scoreless on offense to end their season one game short of the Super Bowl. is unreferenced.
  

That sentence summarizes the content of the final section, which is thoroughly referenced. Does it need citations in both instances?

Ideally it should if the ref covers the whole paragraph just bump it down to cover that as well.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lead uses the word, bumbling which sounds like POV to me.
  

That word always strikes me as looking funny there, but I've never been able to figure out something better. The thing is, mental errors may have been the single most defining characteristic of the Bucs' play through their first three years. They were an inexperienced team, and the Buccaneer staff explicitly chose to lose with young players who had great potential, instead of bringing in experienced players who could help win some games, but would be gone by the time the team improved. Once, when they played a mistake-free game against the Bears, some of the Bears players said that they were unprepared to face the Bucs, because that wasn't the same team they'd been watching in the game films. That word's not intended to be judgmental or ridiculing, it's really how the Bucs were perceived by the rest of the league, as seen in dozens of articles that I've referenced.

Might need a re-word but struggling could be worked in as well as, troublesome. Just some suggestions.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Change every occasion of "Bucs'" to "Buccaneers" or "Tampa Bay"
  

Are you sure? That's an established nickname for the team, and it's used in probably every article that I've cited. That's the longest team name in the NFL, you know, have some mercy.

I recall an admin telling another user during the 2008 season that the use of terms like "Skins", "Bucs", "G-Men", "Boys" etc. is not encouraged, since this is obviously an encyclopedia.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See here. Point 5 is the relevant thing here.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• a game marked by numerous officiating errors and a malfunctioning game clock isn't NPOV.
  

That was a fair summation of the sources, so I added details. Both of those things were significant issues for both sides in this game, and are mentioned in multiple references. Many newspaper articles covering this game actually had headlines that were plays on "clock" or "time", even going so far as to call it a "Cuckoo Clock". IIRC, I ran across an article that mentioned this as one of several games that led to some major discussion about how the NFL could improve the quality of their officiating.

Ah, you're right. Good catch there.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Bucs' inept, penalty-prone play is not a NPOV.
  

That, also, was referenced. They had an uncharacteristically bad day. I changed it to a quote from McKay, where he basically says the same thing. GuySperanza (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Better.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reformatted the online references, but I don't have a record of when I originally accessed them. Unfortunately, I didn't learn how to correctly format these until this was written. The reference to the SI cover was in the article before I took over editing, so I have no idea when that was accessed. Maybe I should change that to reference the print publication, and keep the hyperlink.GuySperanza (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could be better (check out using WP:REFTOOLS) but they're good enough.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed all occurrences of the name "Bucs", although I disagree with that admin. Names like "'Skins" or "G-men" are familiar names used by the team's fans, while "Bucs" is an abbreviation born of necessity. Having another name for the team also helped the article to feel a little less redundant. GuySperanza (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about keeping this on hold so long, didn't realize you had fixed everything. This is now a GA.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GuySperanza (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.buccaneers.com/history/coachesroster.aspx
  • In 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season on 2011-05-25 04:51:39, 404 Not Found
  • In 1980 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season on 2011-06-07 01:51:47, 404 Not Found
  • In 1982 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season on 2011-06-07 03:03:27, 404 Not Found
  • In 1985 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season on 2011-06-07 11:52:20, 404 Not Found
  • In 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season on 2011-06-24 05:17:55, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5k5tYWbae?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buccaneers.com%2Fhistory%2Fcoachesroster.aspx to http://www.buccaneers.com/history/coachesroster.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buccaneers.com/history/coachesroster.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612064801/http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/1979/1001.html to http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/1979/1001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)