Talk:Sanity Code

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bunnypranav talk 14:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1949, several athletic conferences, including the Southeastern Conference, discussed withdrawing from the NCAA after the Sanity Code, which barred athletic scholarships, went into effect?

• Source: Pay for Play: A History of Big-Time College Athletic Reform (Discussion on withdrawal is on p. 97, while p. 93 includes the provision that financial aid be limited only to needs-based assistance)

• • ALT1: ... that in 1949, the University of Virginia threatened to leave the National Collegiate Athletic Association if the Sanity Code, which barred athletic scholarhips, was not amended? Source: Pay for Play: A History of Big-Time College Athletic Reform, p. 97
  • ALT2: ... that several universities and athletic conferences in the Southern United States were opposed to the NCAA's Sanity Code, a 1948 set of rules that barred athletic scholarhips? Source: Pay for Play: A History of Big-Time College Athletic Reform, p. 94; Where Football is King: A History of the SEC, p. 15
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Troupeau Bleu

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 61 past nominations.

JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, well sourced, seems neutral, Earwig shows 30% but no copyvio, hook verifies (using Google Books). Good to go on ALT1, which I consider the most interesting. Great work! Departure– (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sanity Code/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 12:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi JJonahJackalope, thanks for your work on this article. I'll review it- should have comments posted within the next day. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Text

• the prose is generally strong and engaging. I do want to flag off the top- I feel like I usually see "it" for organizations like the NCAA rather than "they", but I need to track down the exact MOS guidance Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me know if you can find anything in the style guide that suggests either "it" or "they" and I'll make changes accordingly. At the very least, I want to make sure that only one term is used consistently throughout the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• will organize some minor comments or suggestions by subsection below: Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Lede

• I would drop "formally" in the first sentence, I don't think it adds any information Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed the word "formally" from the first sentence of the article, as recommended. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• generally, the lede does a good job of providing an overview of info to expect in the body, but I think the first paragraph could be stronger - it sort of briefly touches on history "revoked in 1951" but then promptly backtracks to 1906 for the full story. I think the first para should either provide a more general overview of the history in the context of its importance or leave it all for the second paragraph. Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have edited the first paragraph to leave more of the information in the second paragraph, per your second suggestion here. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Since the NCAA's founding in 1906, they have specified that college sports should be purely amateur but left regulation and enforcement of this to its member institutions." this sentence is doing a lot, I would recommend splitting (+ replacing "they" with "it") into something like "Since the NCAA's founding in 1906, it has specified that college sports should be purely amateur. Regulation and enforcement, however, were left to its member institutions. Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Replaced this sentence with the one recommended above. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "In the Southern United States..." it wasn't just the southern US though, right? Villanova + BC also participated. Maybe qualify this. Or just delete, since you already say "primarily in the South" later on Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed the first part of the sentence, per your suggestion. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "cartelization" - ymmv, but imo this word is not common enough to be used without context/explanation in the lede Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I felt that the link to the article on Cartelization was sufficient, as I also felt that the word was a bit uncommon and could use some additional information. If you have any suggestions on rephrasing the sentence, however, I would definitely be open to discussing changes. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• the last paragraph includes four repetitions of "first". I would try to replace and/or eliminate at least one of these to make the repetition less noticeable Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased the last paragraph to remove several of the uses of the word "first", per your suggestion above. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Background

• I don't think United States needs to be mentioned twice in first sentence. maybe instead say "was established by administrators of several American universities" Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased the first sentence of the first paragraph per your suggesion above. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1916, they defined an amateur as "one who participates in competitive physical sports only for the pleasure, and the physical, mental, moral and social benefits derived therefrom" - I would swap the order slightly so that the year is de-emphasized (i.e. not first), bc that's not really the key piece of information here, the salient point is how they defined amateur sports (and that it was relatively soon after the bylaws were established) Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased this sentence per your suggestion above. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Additionally, the NCAA left enforcement of its amateurism rule up to its member universities, leading to widespread rules violations throughout the first half of the 20th century." up until this point, as a non-expert, it wasn't really clear to me that there were actual rules to be violated, or at least rules defined enough that someone could violate them. Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased this sentence slightly. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "In terms of a standard approach to the issue of financial compensation for athletes, universities and conferences differed on proposed reforms." - I would condense this, it seems a little verbose for a pretty simple point. something like "Universities and conferences disagreed on a standard approach to athlete compensation." Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Replaced the sentence with your recommended rephrasing. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• the sentence starting with "Conferences in the Southern United States, such as the Missouri Valley Conference..." that lists out all the conferences that were in favor and then those opposed should be split Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Split this sentence into two sentences, per your suggestion. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The Sanity Code

• I did some light condensing in this section, feel free to revert or bring up here anything you don't think is an improvement Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Much of the content of the Sanity Code was a reformulation of existing standards concerning amateurism." would condense to something like "Much of the Sanity Code reiterated existing amateurism standards." Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed sentence per your suggestion. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "needs-based basis" sounds a bit clunky to me Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased this section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Despite the opposition, the Sanity Code was approved almost unanimously at the 1948 general convention..." do we know why this happened? as a reader I'm curious why it passed by such a wide margin given the aforementioned opposition Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was not able to find information from the sources that would have given more context for why this happened. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The University of Virginia openly called the code unenforceable..." I think this should probably be attributed to a person or department within the university, rather than the institution stating it as a whole Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The source that that information is attributed to (Lapchick & Slaughter 1989, p. 9) reads as follows: "The University of Virginia went so far as to reject the code openly, declaring it unenforceable." Unfortunately, the source does not give a more specific group or individual to cite this to. Let me know how you would suggest approaching this. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - in that case I think it's fine as-is, as a fair reflection of what the source says. Trying to attribute it to an official (even unnamed) without the source being specific could drift into OR. Zzz plant (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "These institutions, nicknamed the "Sinful Seven" or the "Seven Sinners", were: the Augustinian College of Villanova..." I would remove the "the"s Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Which "the"s? The ones before "Sinful Seven" and "Seven Sinners" or the ones preceding the names of the institutions? -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I meant the ones before the institution names, like "These institutions, nicknamed the “Sinful Seven” or the "Seven Sinners", were: Villanova University, Boston College, The Citadel, University of Maryland, University of Virginia, Virginia Military Institute, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute." but honestly this is a very minor, non-blocking note- no worries if you want to keep them. Zzz plant (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath and legacy

• "and an honor code violation involving members of the 1951 Army Cadets football team." I get the first wikilink is to a specific section, but it still feels a bit odd to have two wls in a row that lead to the same destination page Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed the initial wikilink from this sentence. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "...who made rules enforcement a priority of his during his tenure." I would remove "of his" Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed "of his" per your suggestion. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "That same year, the Sanity Code with a Committee on Infractions that had broad authority to levy sanctions against institutions that are found to be not in good standing." - I think this is missing a verb Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Added "was replaced" after "Code". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "inflicting punitive damages" seems like a value judgement, I would tweak phrasing or attribute Zzz plant (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased this section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• you have two "its own rules" in a row (end of second para, beginning of third para), would recommend rephrasing or striking one of them Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rephrased the first sentence in the third paragraph. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• "In a 1992 work cowritten by economist Robert Tollison, he and his coauthors say..." should this be past tense? Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed "say" to "said". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing

Formatting

• consistent, clear reference formatting Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• no link pointing to Shropshire 1992. can be added to further reading if not directly used in article Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I must have added that book to the Sources section with the expectation that it would be used, but I have moved it to the Further reading section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliability

• meticulously researched article! mostly relies on sources from reputably-published books (several of them by subject-area experts) Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

in line ref #s as of this revision

• [14]: "At the time, both the Big Nine and the PCC had conference rules prohibiting athletic scholarships." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• [16]: "From July 22–23, 1946, the NCAA…held a conference in Chicago to address issues within college athletics, particularly with regards to recruiting." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• [4]: "According to economist Andrew Zimbalist, the code was considered a compromise between the southern conferences and the future members of the Ivy League." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• [53]: "Byrd requested that NCAA member institutions be resurveyed regarding their stances on the Sanity Code." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• [73]: "Howard Chudacoff called the code and its repeal as marking the beginning of "[t]he era of modern intercollegiate athletics"" Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyright

• EW 15.3% due to a source title, and no copyvio or close paraphrasing seen on spot-checked sources Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Scope

• provides a thorough overview of the rules, including background and later implications. nothing seems to be missing and there are no detours of excessive detail. article size (2718 words) is reasonable, not approaching any split/spin-out benchmarks per size rule. Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Stability

• (very brief) and constructive edit history, no signs of any content disputes on talk page Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Illustration

• two relevant portrait photographs, both in public domain with appropriate commons justifications Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• optional suggestion: add alt text for accessibility Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• optional suggestion: it would be nice to have a photo at the top of the article, maybe a scan of a rules-related document or public notice about it (if it exists) Zzz plant (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I was looking for something like this to add, but unfortunately could not find an image of the code itself, though there maybe a newspaper article or headline in the public domain that could be used. I will definitely add an image to the top of the article if an appropriate one is found. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zzz plant:, just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to this article to address the points you raised in your review. Apologies for the delay, but thanks for reviewing this article, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for the detailed responses! I've reviewed your edits and replies; everything has been addressed. I'm confident the article meets the GA criteria so I'll promote this shortly. Excellent work on the article- it's so nice to have a sea of green checks on source spot check! Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.