Talk:1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team

Comments/suggestion

I've followed the work on this article, and it is quite impressive. I'll note below comments/suggestions that occur to me.

• In the lead, you say: "With an undefeated year, the Commodores were often recognized as the greatest Southern team, putting them in the conversation for the best teams in the nation along with: Princeton, Cornell, California, Michigan, and Iowa." While this may be correct, the only source that you give is a fan blog written by James Vautravers. Even if Vautravers' blog is a reliable source, there is nothing in that blog that says that the Commodores "were" (past tense) "often recognized" (i.e., recognized by multiple sources) as "the greatest Southern team." I believe that your contention is likely correct and so have not modified it. But such an assertion really does need better sourcing than a 21st century fan blog. Cbl62 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was confused by the following two sentences from the lead, which appear initially to be contradictory: (1) "Vanderbilt sat atop the conference for the second year in a row", and (2) "This was also Vanderbilt's first season in the new Southern Conference." How could they have been the top team in the conference "for the second year in a row" if it was their "first season" in the new conference? Cbl62 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• You have a tendency to use the feminine article "her" in referring to the team, i.e., "her line", "her speed", and "her" new stadium. Such phrasing was common in the early to mid 20th century, but strikes me as antiquated and unsuitable to an encyclopedia article about a men's college football team. I previously changed some such references to the neutral articles ("its" when referencing Vanderbilt or the team or "their" when referencing the Commodores) and suggest that change be made throughout. Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• We face a challenge in preparing articles on teams of which we are fans. Not sure if you're a Vandy fan, but I assume so. I've previously tried to eliminate some of the more peacockish language (i.e., "stole the show") from an earlier draft. Some remains. I understand and agree with the desire to use active language to bring past events to life. However, we have to temper that a bit, knowing that we are creating an encyclopedia that should neutrally reflect historical events. Not the easiest balance to maintain. Reading through WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:EDITORIAL might help. Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through those. As for that source, the contention is more that they were often considered the greatest Southern team (certainly were, can check the footnotes for those claims in the post-season field. I believe Camp or someone picked Tech, with Vandy second, and the rest I've seen talk about it say Vandy), and that therefore they get thrown into the conversation of best teams of that year during any time. I will still try to find a better source though. Also, I do try to edit along the way but am a lot worse at it as I write and not after, and even then I readily admit my writing could use improvements. Thanks for any suggestions; and no I am not really a Vandy fan, but an ancestor of mine was on the team, which allowed me to get through what would've been square-one of gathering sources for writing such an article. I have tried to be unbiased (of course), but nonetheless tell the season through Vandy's lens so to speak as best I could; pardon if I ran astray anywhere.

I'll also see what I can do to make that part about conference titles less confusing, some elements of the conference alignment at the time still have me confused. Perhaps I can brush up the footnote I have explaining it, it was originally in that introductory part but later moved to the post-season part. It's citation 111 at the moment, and it is an attempt to make the part you were curious about understood. If you are also just interested yourself in quelling the confusion, in 1921 Vanderbilt was Co-Champions of the SIAA finishing with the same record as Georgia, undefeated with one tie; and the one tie was Georgia v. Vandy. In 1922, the Southern Conference was established, and Vanderbilt was one of its champions that year as outlined in the article. Cake (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am printing this out for review ... hopefully I will have something to say within a day or two. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Daniel. Cake (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright. This didn't take long when I got down to it; it shouldn't take long here.

I regret to say that I do not find it is up to the good article criteria.

It was clearly well-researched. But even so, far more paragraphs end without footnotes than I was able to tag as needing such; which alone was enough for me to rule out passing this. The solution to that problem, however, may actually be easy, for there is far more detail than necessary, to the point that the article is almost collapsing under its weight. Do we really need separate sections for each half of all but one of these football games played almost a century ago? Especially all the substitutions (see long list in last graf of Week 2)? You've got the box scores; that and a paragraph or (at most) two summarizing the game is all we need (oh, and I'd consider cutting the box with the conference standings as well). The current level of detail would probably be expected of a wiki devoted to Vanderbilt athletics, and would be a definite FA on a wiki devoted to Vanderbilt generally. But it is way more than we need on Wikipedia.

Fortunately, one of the nice things about writing so much is that improving the article becomes a matter of subtraction rather than addition. This may eliminate the need for some (probably many) of those uncited paragraphs, and the tedious and error-prone process of matching them to sources that you probably already have. In other words, you've done the hard part (at least physically—emotionally I suspect you will have some darlings to kill, as William Faulkner once put it) I recall hearing once, and never forgetting, that the secret of writing well is not so much knowing what to put in but what to leave out (I wish I could find out who said it; Google is not being helpful). Certainly an article about such a narrow subject as this with 174 separate footnotes that took 53 pages to print out (in Firefox, anyway) cannot but benefit from trimming.

Having gotten leaner, however, the article will still have to get meaner. Its tone, style and usage is far too often too journalistic ... it reads too frequently like it was written by a retired sportswriter for the anniversary special program, not an encyclopedist, waxing (or trying to wax) lyrical when it tells us how the new stadium was named after a former quarterback who "died over French skies" during World War I. Just tell us his plane was shot down—that's more direct and tells us what we need to know (And I like that "over French skies" bit—was he in a space capsule or something? That would be interesting ). Of course, since I've changed this already, you'll have to consider an example to follow. Elsewhere, years "see" often enough that I wonder why we aren't training them to assist the visually impaired, and the passive voice leads sentences and clauses too often ("It was noted ...")

There is also much inconsistent usage. In the same second graf of the intro we read of ties being "with" other teams, then later of Vanderbilt's tie "against" Michigan. Numbers seem to be spelled out or not for no particular reason.

And lastly, despite the level of detail of gameplay, there are places where I was interested enough to want to know more. The second graf of the intro tells us this was "one of the best seasons in Vanderbilt and Southern football history"? There's a huge difference between the first and second set. In the first case I'd be interested to know how it ranks among Vanderbilt seasons, and I believe this is something you can find out and tell us. In the second ... wow. Was that just at that time? Or ever? If the latter, it's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, given all the Southern college football that's come since.

I'd also like to know why this was the first season to bar freshmen from play. Was this a conference rule? A school rule? Surely there would be some source offering more explanation here.

There are more issues with this article than could be addressed in the time that putting it on hold would last. For these reasons I am failing it. Certainly, you would be free to renominate it after you have addressed the issue (I'll also add it to the WP:TENN worklist too; maybe you could get some help that way if you want it). Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again. I am not dogmatic about what to cut, but admit pleading ignorance on just what to cut, and hope you can provide some guidelines. Yes I seemed to mix a metaphor which was not a metaphor with over France and in the sky. Quite bad there. Passive voice is something which I should be able to fix soon enough. Things such as the inconsistent use of with or against to describe a tie is likely due to hoping to find which I should use eventually or someone coming along and picking one. I suppose "with" is more neutral–yet it also does not sound like the match was a competition. And "versus" or anything else I could come up with comes across as jargon. "years "see" often enough that I wonder why we aren't training them to assist the visually impaired"–think the joke here went over my head. Unfortunately the source for barring freshmen from play does not elaborate, but it's a fair point. I fear I won't find any more but I will definitely look.

• On one of the greatest teams in Vanderbilt and Southern history. Well, it's a subjective claim which seems important to note among sources. As my sources were contemporary, I've added text which I hopes reflects that. In case you still wish for your question answered it requires what might seem a ramble. In other words, no problem if you have stopped reading. In a broad sense of what that claim has come to mean when one says, for instance "1922 Vandy was one of the greatest southern teams" or "1917 Georgia Tech was one of (if not the) greatest southern teams," one would mean at least up until 1930ish when the "Eastern bias" of the late Walter Camp had been all but purged; probably up until 1945 and the Second World War. Then, for lack of a better term an inductive approach, where the game has changed since before WW2 but still nobody seems to rival those old greats in accomplishments, one could say up until the 1960s for what one means by this era of football in the south. Though of course, the south is not the rest of the world, and so typically 1945 is a cut off point. It helps that in that year Army had a great backfield in the old sense of, say, a 1917 Georgia Tech, featuring Doc Blanchard. Due to contemporary opinion of the 60s one can also use a three pronged approach which instead uses the First World War, and which has the nice feature that, with 1918 as the year most affected by the war for football and I guess not counted, one can use the 50 year span from 1869 (the first football game, north or south) to 1919 as an era, then another 50 for 1920 to 1969, and then from things such as the AFL–NFL merger to the present day. To say those which rank highly in their time given by any splitting of eras, would not still at least rank among various modernes if evaluated qua era seems unfounded to me. But then that's just me.

• For Vanderbilt history, the team has not won its conference since 1923 and has hardly had even a powerful team since the 1930s. Or, if we are charitable, giving them for instance Bill Wade and Bucky Curtis in between, we might say not since 1955 with an 8–3 record and the first bowl appearance. Those which rank among the greatest Vandy teams are arguably 1904, 1905; 1906; 1907; 1910; 1911; 1915; 1921 and 1922. The 1912 and 1926 teams both lost a single game to the national champion. 1912 was so dwarfed by 1910 and 1911, and 1926 had the national champion come out of the south; and so these are not often mentioned though on paper they are there too. Of these, 1904, 1910, 1921, and 1922 finished undefeated. 1905 and 1906 were bickered about in their day as greatest Vandy team. 1910 and 1922 had scoreless ties with heavily favored Yale and Michigan, respectively. 1907 had a tie with heavily favored Navy and defeated one of Sewanee's strongest units. 1906 had the biggest victory when it defeated Carlisle. Lynn Bomar of 1921-22 was the first Vanderbilt football player inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Josh Cody was on the 1915 team and later received that honor–though he also was a prominent coach (an even better player, granted). If you include 1926, then you've also Bill Spears for teams including hall of famers. 21 and 22, of course, also have the combined forces of McGugin and Wade, with which say McGugin and Manier does not compete. Cake (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this tonight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• Note 1 doesn't have a citation.
• Note 2 doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic. "It seems" should be avoided; say what the sources state and no more. A "conference win" in this time period isn't as well-defined as it is today, so just being clear how you come to the number (and what sources support it) is enough. Please make it more clear in the note that the number you're citing includes Sewanee.
• Rephrase first sentence of second paragraph to avoid beginning it with a year/number. It's not grammatically incorrect, but it is poor style.
• Cite 2 needs to be marked closed access per the style you've chosen for citations.
• In the second paragraph, it needs to be clarified over what time period Vanderbilt was considered the best team in the South. I assume you're comparing them only to other teams in the season, but this is unclear.
• In the third paragraph, I don't believe "All-America" needs to be italicized. If it does, that should be consistent across the two usages of the term.
• Billy Evans National Honor Roll --> Billy Evans' National Honor Roll
• The two sentences regarding Billy Evans' honor rolls are a bit repetitive. Could this be condensed into one sentence that presents both pieces of information?

Before the season

• Note 3 can probably be part of the text itself. It's a particularly relevant bit of background to this season.
• First paragraph, second sentence doesn't follow from the source. The headline states that they chose the team from 23 candidates, not that they filled 23 roster spots. Note that more than 23 players eventually participated according to later information in the article, so be careful not to word in a way that doesn't create a contradiction.
• Please rephrase Note 4 so it isn't a sentence fragment.
• The latter portion of the first paragraph could use a copyedit, as it uses "also" quite a bit and has repetitive sentence structure.
• Start of second paragraph "including captain Jess Neely Captain" is likely a typo.
• Note 5 is more a bit of trivia than anything. It probably doesn't belong in the article, but the information should be included in Neely's article.
• "replacement quarterback Alvin Bell" is unclear to me. Who was he replacing and when? Do you just mean back-up? This could be more clear.
• Extraneous space before the period in the area of the 21st cite.
• The final sentence of paragraph two is not supported by the source. It's probably false. Based on what I'm seeing, Zerfoss was completing a medical degree before joining the coaching staff. He hadn't been with Kentucky since 1914 according to his article.
• First two sentences of third paragraph are a bit repetitive. Consider replacing the repetitive use of the team names with "both teams" or similar in the second sentence. You could also possibly merge the two sentences.
• "Michigan, which also had a strong squad" – the strong squad bit is probably redundant. The fact that they were favored to win the west speaks for itself.
• If "try for a point" is an accepted term (versus a quote), you can remove the first cite of cite 24. If the whole paragraph is sourced to that one cite, it can just go at the end.

Schedule

No comments.

Week 1

• What does "broken fields" mean?
• Why specifically against Michigan? (third paragraph)
• Need a cite on the "highlight" for Normal. Additionally, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek to call this a highlight. Typically, getting a single first down isn't exactly cause to brag. Might want to reword this to present it in a light more typical of only recording one first down in a game.

Week 2

• "Ineffective" should be changed to "generally ineffective" or similar; it's difficult to call them wholly ineffective when they ripped off a 70-yard run.
• Add a comma before "sparking the offense".
• Were the two drives consecutive? If yes, note this to indicate that this was a bit of a run. If no, why are we combining them together?
• Was the quarterback position more flexible back then? By modern standards, this would be an extraordinary game that warrants coaching response if they had to swap their quarterbacks this much and ultimately switch to a halfback. Was there any such coaching response?

Week 3

• Remove note 7. It may belong in the game article, but per WP:Summary style, it doesn't belong here. Neither fact is relevant to the 1922 Vanderbilt season.
• Can you obtain a more specific source for the term "underdog"? This isn't clearly supported by the inline cite, but I suspect you could find such sourcing. We have to be careful to only use such terms when they're clearly supported by sources, since it's easy to put editorial spin on games like these.
• Should the circumstances of the Commodores being unhealthy be included either in Week 3 or an earlier week?
• The last sentence of paragraph three is a tad awkward. "Addendum" is cumbersome in this context. Could you tweak this a bit?

Week 4

• This is liable to annoy, but I'm going to decline to review this for now because this so obviously doesn't meet WP:Summary style, which speaks to criteria 3b. Please condense this. If the game was notable, you may consider splitting out what's currently written into its own article. Eleven paragraphs on a single game is excessive for a season article, though. Once this is cut down to a reasonable size, I will review it in more detail.

Week 5

• What exactly does featureless match mean?
• "do-it-all" is easier a quote that needs to be attributed and placed in quotation marks or should be re-worded. It's not particularly neutral if not a quote.
• Ref 91 doesn't work, please see if you can find a working link/archive.
• "The Commodores were held scoreless in the first quarter." can be cut for brevity, as the next sentence mentions that the first score wasn't until the second quarter.
• Please add a cite to the end of paragraph 2. It ends with several sentences with specific facts but no cite.

Week 6

• Is the fact that the Commodores were playing in a new stadium from the other team really that noteworthy? The new stadium shouldn't affect them all that much, so I struggle to see how this passes beyond trivia. I could maybe be convinced on this, but I'm skeptical.
• Second paragraph, third sentence: "but" should be changed to "and", as the slight favorite directly follows from what was said before.
• Second paragraph, last sentence: Needs to be reworded. The "so many writers" bit sounds awkward, and I'm not sure what grammatical construction you're going for. Cite needed for this sentence.
• Third paragraph: "Charged" is a bit of a non-neutral/puffery type term. Please re-word.

Week 7

• Is both teams supposedly being confident really worth including? That sounds like press release type nonsense that coaches spout off to get their players going.
• "Snuffed out" - please reword, not encyclopedic.
• "Freddie Meiers was the star of the contest." This sentence comes out of nowhere. It should probably be toward the end of the section when summarizing the result or before you start recounting the play-by-play. Having it in the middle seems odd.
• "got his feet from behind" --> "tackled his feet from behind"

Week 8

• Needs trimming before I review it, similar to Week 4. Eleven paragraphs is too much for one game.

Week 9

• I don't see "oldest rival" supported in the source.
• Please reword the last sentence of paragraph 1 to make clear it was the largest attendance at that time. I'm sure new records have been set since then.
• Is the phrase "kicked goal" normal in older football games? It lacks an article. I would usually expect to see "kicked a field goal" or at least "kicked a goal" in modern times.
• The sentence with the phrase "On fourth down Sewanee" needs a comma between down and Sewanee.

Per oldest rival, the source title says first rival, and dates the rivalry to 1891. Cake (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-season

• Is this header appropriate? There was no post-season as far as I can tell, unless I'm misreading things. This is more of a "legacy" section. Thoughts?

Hm. There was no bowl season other than the Rose Bowl, but there was still some post-season discussion of the season in the newspapers, for All-America or All-Southern, for championships, next year's schedule, and so forth. The first sentence could just as well go in a legacy section, but the rest seems to go with the immediate postseason discussion. Even the first sentence is to say the team's legacy was noticed early on. Cake (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• You can probably remove the game start times from the boxes that include them. That's borderline stats table information. It's definitely not necessary in a complete summary of the season.

Response

• Thank you very much for this Rob. Going over it for the first time. Some comments:
• I am a bit curious myself what "broken fields" mean, but it is a crucial element of the game so long ago. Everett Strupper is called the greatest broken field runner there ever was (for Southerners, anyway). I believe it means in the open field, rather than with players blocking for you. It is one of those terms I've thought about adding to wikipedia. Don't want to make it just a sporting dictionary, but there are several biographies and such where one is going to wonder what is e. g. a broken-field.
• Because Michigan was known to be the season's toughest game even at week one, I suppose.
• Short answer: It's not odd at all to have your "emergency quarterback" be a halfback. Long answer: The whole backfield or set of running backs was a lot more interchangeable in those days. A quarterback was picked from the pool of halfbacks and fullbacks. Quarterbacks were smallest and fullbacks were biggest. The quarterback was the "field general" if you like while the halfbacks were the ones who could pass the ball (like Neely, and unlike today) and the fullbacks could punt; but in general the main duty of carrying the ball overlapped and it was simply a matter of where you lined up in the formation. If you look at the page of the year before, you can see a quarterback/halfback lined up at fullback. With Rountree in particular, they spent a short time trying to make him a quarterback. Cake (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies quite a few things. I'll be continuing this review throughout the week; I try to be detailed in my comments, so it may take a bit. Feel free to respond to what's here in the meantime. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I found it hard to decide what to cut from the Texas and Georgia games, but you're right. Trimmed some from the Texas game.

I'm not sure any source says "underdog", but several attest to Michigan as clear favorites.

The injuries were after the first two games and definitely referenced as part of the build-up to the Michigan game, rather than plaguing them all season or before it.

Should I really remove the note that says Bill Neely was captain of the 1910 team? 1910 and 1922 are both big years, so it seems a connection to note. Cake (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry for the delays here; I've gotten quite busy in real life unexpectedly. I'll get back to this in the near future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally done with this review. Again, sorry for the massive delays, MisterCake. Real life went crazy for a while there. Please address the outstanding things above. Ideally, I'd appreciate if you responded to each comment (even if just to say "done") in-line with my review to make it easy for me to re-review when you've made your changes. Ping me when you need me to take another look.  On hold ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Done all of them. The Sewanee game could probably be trimmed down some too. I think "kicked goal" is said normally, but I changed it anyway for clarity's sake. Cake (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Round 2

Some of these are duplicated from above recommendations that haven't been addressed. If you think they shouldn't be adopted, happy to discuss.

• Please alter note 2 to clearly indicate whether the Sewanee win is being counted in your tally of conference wins, since you've stated it can be either way.
• Cite 2 should be marked closed access.
• The first appearance of cite 18 can be removed. The cite at the end of the paragraph covers it.
• I believe you missed the Week 1 section above when working through my comments; the concerns weren't addressed.
• Need a cite for Normal's best play.
• Week 4 needs to be cut down more. A few suggestions on what to cut: We don't need to know about which radio station broadcast the game (paragraph 1). Paragraphs 4 and 5 can be both condensed greatly (cut out detail about fruitless drives) and combined. Combine paragraphs 8 and 9. Generally, try to cut out poetic language and focus on the essentials of the game.
• What exactly does featureless match mean? (Week 5)
• Week 8 needs some cuts. Cut paragraph 2 entirely as overly detailed/not needed in a summary style article. Paragraph 3 needs a copy-edit, as it's a bit rambling. "In 1922, Vanderbilt was acknowledged as having returned to its full form." can be cut. Paragraph 4, sentence 3 needs rewording due to confusing prose. Cut "Georgia fans were surprised to see Vanderbilt try an unusual play." (unnecessary). Paragraphs 8 and 9 should be combined, since paragraph 9 is short.

Anything I haven't commented on in this section doesn't need further changes as far as I can tell. There were a few comments you questioned above where I agreed with your responses, so don't worry about going back and fixing those things. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks again, especially for the suggestions on what to cut. I'm not sure I missed more about week one than the Delay citation, as I responded about broken fields and why I mentioned Michigan in week one. A featureless match is a boring game - one without features. Cake (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• @MisterCake: Gotcha. Was this ready for another pass from me? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Should be. Cake (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• @MisterCake: The changes look good. My inclination is to want more cuts to Week 4, but I think the article now meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. This doesn't involve the GA criteria, but I encourage you to remove the via Newspapers.com bits from all references per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT; you don't need to list the database you used to access an article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160201232953/http://www.vucommodores.com/ot/history-corner-083006.html to http://www.vucommodores.com/ot/history-corner-083006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120001946/http://www.vucommodores.com/sports/historycorner/spec-rel/090512aab.html to http://www.vucommodores.com/sports/historycorner/spec-rel/090512aab.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054933/http://iagenweb.org/ringgold/obitht001/obit_l-obit_m/obit-mcgugindaniel.html to http://iagenweb.org/ringgold/obitht001/obit_l-obit_m/obit-mcgugindaniel.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) 22:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160304204846/http://www.databasefootball.com/college/teams/teamyear.htm?TeamID=46&Season=1922 to http://www.databasefootball.com/college/teams/teamyear.htm?TeamID=46&Season=1922

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) 01:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)